According to the view more commonly expressed, a lunatic's transactions are voidable. An analogy with infant's contracts, confessedly not perfect, inasmuch as an infant may be, in fact, mentally competent, whereas a lunatic generally, at least, is incompetent in fact to understand the force of his bargain, has been followed both as to contracts 18 and deeds.19

16 Heed v. Mattapan Ac. Trust Co., 198 Mara. 306, 84 N. E. 469.

17 Leightoo v. Haverhill Sav. Bank, 227 Mass. 67, 116 N. E. 414. See also supra, Sec.237.

18 Wright v. Waller, 127 Ala. 5S7, 29 So. 67, 54 L. R. A. 440; Coburn v. Raymond, 76 Conn. 484, 100 Am. St. Rep. 1000; Orr v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 107 Ga. 499, 33 S. E. 708; Woolley v. Gaines, 114 Ga. 122, 39 S. E. 892, 88 Am. St. Rep. 22; Mead v. Stegall, 77 111. App. 679; Joest v. Williams, 42 Ind. 566, 13 Am. St. Rep. 377; Musselman v. Cravens, 47 Ind. 1; Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Herr, 135 Ind. 591, 35 N. E. 556; Mansfield v. Watson, 2 Iowa, 111; Allen v Berry-hill, 27 Iowa, 534, 1 Am. Rep. 309; Van Fatten v. Seals, 46 Iowa, 62; Soaver v. Phelps, 11 Pick. 304, 22 Am. Dec. 372; Reed v. Mattapan Deposit & Trust Co., 198 Mass. 306, 84 N. E. 469; Sutcliffe v. Heatley (Mass.), 122 N. E. 317; Carpenter v. Rodgers, 61 Mich. 384, 28 N. W. 156, 1 Am. St. Rep. 595; De Vries v. Crofoot, 148 Mich. 183, 111 N. W. 775; Broadwater v. Dame, 10 Mo. 277; Ingraham v. Baldwin, 9 N. Y. 45; Bush v. Breinig, 113 Pa. St. 310, 6 Atl. 86, 57 Am. Rep. 469.

19Luhrs v, Hancock, 181 U. S. 567,

574, 21 S. Ct. 726, 44 L. Ed. 1005; Woolley v. Gaines, 114 Ga. 122, 39 S. E. 892, 88 Am. St. Rep. 22; Scan-Ian v, Cobb, 85 111. 298; Walton v. Malcolm, 264 111. 389, 106 N. E. 211; Nichol v. Thomas, 53 Ind. 42; Freed v. Brown, 55 Ind. 310; Schuff c. Ransom, 79 Ind. 458; Boyer v. Berriman, 123 Ind. 451, 24 N. E. 249; Harrison v. Otley, 101 Iowa, 652, 70 N. W. 724; Gribben v. Maxwell, 34 Kans. 8, 7 Pac. 584; Smith's Committee v. Forsythe, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 1034, 90 S. W. 1075; Wathen v. Skaggs, 161 Ky. 600, 171 S. W. 193; Hovey v. Hobson, 53 Me. 451, 89 Am. Dec. 705; Allis v. Billings, 6 Mete. 415, 39 Am. Dec. 744; Riley v. Carter, 76 Md. 581, 25 All. 667, 19 L. R. A. 489; Arnold v. Richmond Iron Works, 1 Gray, 434; Gib. son v. Soper, 6 Gray, 279, 66 Am. Dec-414; Howe v. Howe, 99 Mass. 88, 98; Rogers v. Blackwell, 49 Mich. 192, 13 N. W. 512 (semble); Moran v. Moran, 106 Mich. 8, 63 N. W. 989, 58 Am. St. Rep. 462; Thorpe v. Hansoom, 64 Minn. 201, 66 N. W. 1; Miller v. Barber, 73 N. J. L. 38, 62 Atl. 276; Blinn v. Schwaw, 177 N. Y. 252, 69 N. E. 542, 101 Am. St. Rep. 806; Riggan v. Green, 80 N. C. 236, 30 Am. Rep. 77; Elston v. Jasper, 45 Tex. 409; Porter v. Brooks (Tex- Civ. App.), 159 S. W.