For the same reason as in the case of infants, lunatics are liable for necessaries furnished them.61 As pointed out62 under the heading of infancy, this liability should be regarded as quasi-contractual rather than contractual.63 Hence it is not necessary for the existence of the liability that any

59 Imperial Loan Co. v. Stone, [1892] 1 Q. B. 599; Allore v. Jewell, 94 U. S. 506, 24 L. Ed. 260; - Harding v. Wheaton, 2 Mason (U. S.), 378; Henry d. Fine, 23 Ark. 417; Ronan v. Bluhn, 173 111. 277, SO N. E. 694; Hardy v. Dyas, 203 111. 211, 67 N. E. 862; Thrash v. Starbuok, 146 Ind. 673, 44 N. E. 643; Sheehan v. Allen, 67 Kane. 712, 74 Pac. 246; Waller v. Julius, 68 Kana. 314,74 Pac. 157,35 L. R. A. 161; Rhoades v. Fuller, 139 Mo. 179, 40 S. W. 760; Creekmore v. Baxter, 121 N. C. 31, 27 S. E. 994; Hosier v. Beard, 64 Ohio St. 398, 43 N. E. 1040, 56 Am. St. Rep. 720; Crawford v. Scovell, 94 Pa. St. 48, 39 Am. Rep. 766; Lincoln v. Buckmaster, 32 Vt. 652.

59Hale v. Kobbert, 109 Iowa, 128, 80 N. W. 308; Clark v. Lopez, 75 Miss. 932, 23 So. 648, 957; Halley v. Trcester, 72 Mo. 73; Sims v. McLure, 8 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 286, 70 Am. Dec. 196.

60 Goldberg v. West End Homestead Co., 78 N. J. L. 70, 73 Atl. 128.

61 Baxter v. Portsmouth, 5 B. & C. 170; Ex part* Northington, 37 Ala. 496, 79 Am. Dec. 67; Borum v. Bell, 132 Ala. 85, 31 So. 454; Henry v. Fine, 23 Ark. 417; Ratliff v. Baltzer's Adm. 13 Ida. 152,89 Pac. 71; Sawyer v. Lufkin, 56 Me. 308; Kendall v. May, 10

Allen, 59; Gross v. Jones, 89 Miss. 44, 42 So. 802; Reando v. Misplay, 90 Mo. 251, 2 S. W. 405, 59 Am. Rep. 13; Hartley v. Hartley's Est., 173 Mo. App. 18, 165 S. W. 1099; Seeva v. True, 53 N. H. 627; Van Horn v. Hann, 39 N. J. L. 207; Waldron v. Davis, 70 N. J. L. 788, 68 Atl. 293, 68 L. R. A. 591; Richardson v. Strong, 13 Ired. L. 106, 55 Am. Dec. 430; Surles v. Pipkin, 69 N. C. 513; Kneedler's Appeal, 92 Pa. St. 428; In re Arnold's Eat., 253 Pa. 617, 98 Atl. 701; Blaisdell v. Holmes, 48 Vt. 492.

62 See supra, [ 240.

63 Re Rhodes, 44 Ch. D. 94; Henry v. Fine, 23 Ark. 417, 418; Hartley v. Hartley's Estate, 173 Mo. App. 18, 155 S. W. 1099; Sceva v. True, 53 N. H. 627; Sheltman v. Taylor's Committee, 116 Va. 762, 82 S. E. 698. In Re Rhodes, at p. 107, Lindley, L. J., deprecated "The unfortunate terminology of our law, owing to which the expression 'implied contract' has been used to denote not only a genuine contract established by inference, but also an obligation which does not arise from any real contract, but which can be enforced as if it had a contractual origin. Obligations of this class are called by civilians obligationes quasi ex conexpress contract be made, as is shown by the fact, that even though a lunatic is under guardianship and, consequently, totally incapable of contracting, he can, nevertheless, bind himself for necessaries if not furnished with them by his guardian.64 As in the case of infants also a lunatic's liability is measured not by the promises he may have made but by the value of the necessaries furnished him.65 As to what constitutes necessaries, the same principles that have been discussed previously in case of infants are applicable. In the case of a lunatic medical services, including nursing and other protection usual for insane persons, may be necessary.66 Legal services of an attorney to obtain release from an asylum have also been held necessary if faithfully and prudently rendered, regardless of whether they proved beneficial.67 Necessaries furnished to the wife of the lunatic are also a necessary expense to him for which he may be held liable.68 The lender of money to a lunatic who uses it in the purchase of necessaries is dealt with in the same way as a similar lender of money to an infant;69 and, therefore, he is subrogated in equity to the rights of one from whom the necessaries were purchased.70