evidence as to other parties. (k) But it has been held, that even where the statute expressly declares all the contracts of a lunatic under guardianship void, or disables him from entering into contracts, it is not the purpose nor effect of such provisions to annul his contract for necessaries, if made in good faith by the other party, and under circumstances which justify the contract.(l) If a lunatic be sued, or a claim is made upon him, perhaps any person, though not expressly authorized, may in his case, as in that of an infant, make, in good faith, a legal tender for him, which shall inure for his benefit.

Courts of law, as well as equity afford protection to those who are of unsound mind. They endeavor to draw a line between sanity and insanity, but cannot so well distinguish between degrees of intelligence. Against the consequence of mere imprudence, folly, or that deficiency of intellect which makes mistake easy, but does not amount to unsound or disordered intellect, even equity gives no relief, unless the other party has made use of this want of intelligence to do a certainly wrongful act. (m) fendant, that an inquisition of lunacy in England is not conclusive on the question of sanity; but it is a sufficient answer, that such an inquisition is very different from the proceedings in a court of probate under our statute. The plaintiff insists that the guardianship is conclusive of the disability of the ward, in relation to all subjects on which the guardian can act, and that the only mode of preventing this operation is by procuring the guardianship to be set aside. And there can be no question but that the judge of probate has power to reconsider the subject, and if it shall appear that the cause for the appointment of a guardian has ceased, or that the guardian is an improper person for the office, the letter of guardianship may be revoked. McDonald v. Morton, 1 Mass. 543. In the case of White v. Palmer, 4 Mass. 147, it was held, that the letter of guardianship was competent evidence of the insanity of the ward, and the reasoning tends to show that it is conclusive; but this was not the question then before the court. If this were not the general principle of the law, the situation of the guardian would be extremely unpleasant, and it would be almost impossible to execute the trust. In every action he might be obliged to go before the jury upon the question of sanity, and one jury might find one way, and another another We are of opinion, that as to most subjects, the decree of the probate court, so long as the guardianship continues, is conclusive evidence of the disability of the ward; but that it is not conclusive in regard to all. For ex ample, the ward, if in fact of sufficient capacity, may make a will, for this is an act which the guardian cannot do for him. But the transaction now in question falls within the general rule." So, proceedings in a court of equity, establishing the lunacy of a party, are admissible to prove the lunacy in an action at law, against third persons no1 a party to the proceedings in equity. McCreight v Aiken, 1 Rice, 56. And creditors of an obligor to a bond, if not interested in the result, are competent witnesses to prove the obligor's lunacy. Hart v. Deamer, 6 Wend. 497. And to prove a party's lunacy at the time of making a contract, evidence of the state of his mind before, at, and after such time is admissible. Grant v. Thompson, 4 Conn

203. Although the mere opinion of wit nesses not medical men. relative to the sanity of a party, are not admissible, yet their opinions, in connection with the facts upon which they are founded, may be. Grant v. Thompson, 4 Conn. 203; McCurry v. Hooper, 12 Ala. 823.

(k) Sergeson v. Sealey, 2 Atk. 412; Faulder v. Silk, 3 Camp 126. And the same rule was recognized in Hart v Deamer, 6 Wend. 497. See also Hop-son v. Boyd. 6 B. Mon. 296

(l) McCrillis v. Bartlett, 8 N. H

(m) Osmond v. Fitzroy, 3 P, Wms

It may be said that a lower degree of intellect suffices ordinarily to make a will than is required to make a valid contract. (n)

In this country, where provision is made by statute that persons of unsound mind may be put under guardianship, this may be done upon a representation and request, either of the authorities of the town in which he resides, or of his friends or relatives; and after proper inquiry into the facts, and into the evidence and character of the insanity. The guardian so appointed gives bonds for the due management and care of the estate and person of the insane. He then is put into possession of the estate of his ward, and has the general disposition * and control of it. For their powers and duties, see the preceding chapters on Guardians and on Trustees.

Similar provisions are often made with respect to persons mentioned in the next section.