Though a lunatic's contracts are regarded as voidable only, they may at common law, if voidable at all, be avoided against a subsequent purchaser who paid value for the property which was originally sold by the lunatic, though the purchaser bought in ignorance of the insanity of the prior owner.20 This rule, however, so far as concerns sales of chattel property has been changed by the Uniform Sales Act21 which makes no exception to the rule that a bona fide purchaser for value from one who has a voidable title acquires a good title. In jurisdictions which require restoration of the consideration received by a lunatic as a condition of his avoidance of his acts as against an immediate purchaser in good faith "it is clear that subsequent grantees who take the title in like good faith and ignorance of the incompeent's disability are entitled to be restored to their original position before they can be deprived of their property by the intervention of a court of equity." 22
192; Smith v. Guerre (Tex. Civ. App.), 159S.W.417. See also Hardy v. Dyas, 203 I11 211, 67 N. E. 852; Sheehau v. Allen, 67 Kara. 712, 74 Pac. 246. In Pattern v. Washington, 54 Ore, 479, 103 Pac. 60, personal property was transferred by an insane person to one who did not then know of the insanity but learned of it soon afterwards. The court held that the lunatic on regaining his sanity might demand the property and that the transferee on learning of the insanity was bound to take ordinary care of the property with a view to returning it on request.
20Hull v. Louth, 109 Ind. 31S, 10 N. £. 270, 58 Am. Rep. 405; Hovey v. Hobson, 53 Me. 451, 89 Am. Dec. 705; Rogers v. Blackwell, 49 Mich. 192, 13 N. W. 512; McKenzie v. Donnett, 151 Mo. 431, 52 S. W. 314; Dewey v. Allgire, 37 Neb. 6, 55 N. W. 279, 40 Am. St. Rep' 568; Gingrich v. Rogers, 09 Neb. 527, 98 N. W. 156; Burgedorff v. Hamer, 95 Neb. 113, 145 N. W. 250; Schanck v. Hooper, 160 N. Y. S,
627. But see Ashoraft v. De Armond, 44 Iowa, 229; Odom v. Riddiok, 104 N. C. 515, 10 S. E. 609, 7 L. R. A. 118, 17 Am. St. Rep. 686, where it was held that a bona fide purchaser of land who had paid full value for it could not be deprived thereof unless the consideration paid was restored. It should be observed that wherever it is held that a lunatic cannot avoid a contract made by him with one who is ignorant of his lunacy and who pays him full value as consideration, unless the original status is restored, it necessarily follows that property if recoverable from a bona fide purchaser can be recovered only upon the same conditions.
21Sec. 24. See supra, Sec. 233, as to similar effect on an infant's privilege, and infra, ! 506, for the States which have enacted the Sales Act.
22 Coburn v. Raymond, 76 Conn. 484, 492, 57 Atl. 116,100 Am. St. Rep. 1000.