Sec 113

On the one hand, proof of latent lunacy at the time of marriage will not avoid a marriage; since otherwise, few persons could be sure of legitimate descent, and titles by succession would, in many cases, be made to depend upon occult and uncertain conditions. Mere collateral delusions, also, do not avoid a marriage ; and no matter how eccentric a person may be, his marriage, until judicially avoided, will be regarded as passing title under the distribution statutes.4 An inquisition of lunacy, that a party to a marriage was insane at the time, is only prima facie proof of such insanity; and his sanity may be established in the face of such finding.5 On the other hand, a marriage which a lunatic has been fraudulently induced to solemnize will be annulled ;6 though not ordinarily after ber of it expressly on the authority of Molton v. Camroux) that it was only voidable, and the replication therefore good." See to same effect Eaton v. Eaton, 37 N. J. L. 118 ; Evans v. Horan, 52 Md. 602 ; Scanlan v. Cobb, 85 111. 296; Asheraft v. De Arman, 44 Iowa, 229 ;. Rusk v. Fenton, 14 Bush, 490.

Partnership contracts of lunatics only voidable.

Distinctive rule as to marriage contracts.

1 Lindley on Part. i. 235, cited and adopted by Pollock, Wald's ed. 82.

2 Story on Part. sec 295 ; Isler v. Baker, 6 Humph. 85.

3 Infra, sec 123 ; Wh. on Ev. sec 403, 812, 1254.

4 Wiser v. Lockwood, 42 Vt. 720.

5 Banker v. Banker, 63 N. Y. 409. Infra, sec 123.

5 Portsmouth v. Portsmouth, 1 Hag. Ec. R. 355 ; Hancock v. Peaty, L. R. 1 P. & D. 835 ; see Atkinson v. Medford, 46 Me. 510 ; Middleborough v. Rochester, 12 Mass. 363 ; Wightman v. Wight-man, 4 Johns. Ch. 343 ; Banker v. Banker, 63 N. Y. 409; Atkinson v. Medford, 46 Me. 510; Crump v. Morgan, 3 Ired. Eq. 91; Foster v. Means, 1 Speer's Eq. 569; Clement v. Matti-son, 8 Rich. 98; Cole v. Cole, 5 Sneed, 57 ; Rawdon v. Rawdon, 28 Ala. 565 ; Ward v. Dulaney, 23 Miss. 410.

the lunatic's death, or after a long lapse of time.1 Avoidable marriage solemnized by a party when insane, may be ratified by him when in his right mind;2 and this holds good as to marriage by an intoxicated person.3 But a marriage absolutely void (e. g., by a total maniac) is on principle not susceptible of subsequent ratification.4

1 Wiser v. Lockwood, 42 Vt. 720; Rawdon v. Rawdon, ut supra. That under N. Y. Stat. such marriage is only voidable, see Stuckey v. Mather, 24 Hun, 461.

2 Bishop, Mar. and Div. 6th ed. sec 135; Cole v. Cole, 5 Sneed, 57 ; Rawdon v. Rawdon, 28 Ala. 565.

3 Clement v. Mattison, 3 Rich, 193.

4 Crump v. Morgan, 3 Ired. Eq. 91 ; Ward v. Dulauey, 23 Miss. 410. In the London Law Times for Jan. 7, 1882, p. 168, we have the following: "The Lancet remarks that, in the divorce court, on Friday, the 16th Dec, a very important case was settled in reference to insanity. The case was Hunter v. Edney. In this case a woman was married, but refused on the wedding night to allow the marriage to be consummated. The husband sent for the mother of the woman, who took her home after she had been seen by Dr. Miskin, a general practitioner in the neighborhood. Dr. Miskin was of the opinion that then she was insane. Some few weeks later, Dr. Savage, of Bethlem, saw the case, and decided that the woman was suffering from melancholia, and not fit to enter into a contract, and that in his opinion she had so suffered for some time. The whole case took but a short part of one day, and there was really no opposition, for though the wife was in court, and elected to go into the witness-box, she did not deny any of the statements made, but said that she had no knowledge of some of the things which were proved to have taken place during the time soon following her wedding. Thus, she did not remember, so she said, making an attempt to strangle herself. The judge, Sir J. Hannen, summed up clearly and fairly, and pointed out that the woman did not seem capable of understanding actions free from the influence of delusions, and was therefore incapable of entering into a contract like that of marriage, and he decreed the marriage null. This is the first case of the kind which has been decided, and is not by any means a solitary one, so far as the insanity and marriage are concerned. During the past year several cases have, we believe, been in Bethlem in which marriage was not consummated in consequence of insanity. In one a man heard a voice telling him he must not touch his wife, and the same patient later heard a voice telling him not to eat. The case decided is a first one, and is incomplete. What line would have been followed if the marriage had been consummated, and, still more, if a child had been begotten ? The inability to contract would have been the same, but we fear there might have been greater difficulty to persuade a jury-if a jury had been deciding- that a divorce was justifiable. In murder cases the feeling of many is moved against taking human life, but the life-long misery caused by an unjust marriage in which one of the con tracting parties was insane, is a suffering of the innocent which is unhappily overlooked. Such cases make it all important that something should be.