If a lunatic's contracts are voidable only, they may be ratified and the authorities almost uniformly support the validity of such ratification if the lunatic was not under guardianship.23 Any conduct on the part of the lunatic who has regained his reason which clearly indicates assent to his previous acts, ratifies and validates them.24 Such conduct will amount to ratification in spite of ignorance of the right to avoid the transaction and of the effect of the subsequent conduct as a relinquishment of that right.25 Whether a mere failure to disaffirm a bargain made during insanity will suffice for ratification has not been as much discussed as the corresponding question in regard to infants. It seems, however, that if the lunatic on recovering his reason was aware of the bargain which he had made while insane, delay without more would preclude him from disaffirming the transaction.26 The lunatic's representatives may ratify after his death a contract made by him; 27 and so they may disaffirm the bargain.28 In England ratification by a guardian has been upheld; 29 and in the United States the converse proposition, that the guardian of a lunatic may disaffirm his contracts, has been accepted.30 It has been held in Nebraska, however, that the acts of a lunatic cannot be ratified by his guardian or even by the court having jurisdiction over the lunatic.31 The party with whom the lunatic dealt cannot avoid the contract because of the lunacy.32 And so far as third persons are concerned the contract before it has been avoided is valid.33 Therefore, a creditor of an insane person cannot attack a transfer of property made by his debtor for the sole reason that the grantor was a lunatic at the time of the transfer.34 If a contract has been ratified it is obvious that it cannot thereafter be avoided.35 It has been held that a lunatic's contracts cannot be effectively avoided by him while insane,36 but the decisions on this question in regard to infants should be compared.37

23 Matthews v. Baxter, L R. 8 Ex. 132; Baldwyn v. Smith, [1900] 1 Ch. 588; Ętna. L. I. Co. ». Sellers, 164 Ind. 370, 68 N. E. 97, 77 Am. St. Rep. 481; Arnold v. Richmond Works, 1 Gray, 434; Wolcott v. Conn. L. I. Co., 137 Mich. 309, 100 N. W. 569; Cochran Timber Co. p. Fisher, 190 Mich. 478, 157 N. W. 282; Gingrich v. Rogers, 69 Neb. 627, 96 N. W. 1S6; Blinn v. Schwarz, 177 N. Y. 252, 69 N. E. 642,101 Am. St. Rep. 806; Law rence v. Morris, 167 N. Y. App. D. 186, 162 N. Y. S. 777; Smith v. Guerre (Tex. Civ- App.), 159 S. W. 417. And see cases in the following notes. But see Oakley v. Shelley, 129 Ala. 467, 470, 29 So. 385.

24 Barry v. St. Joseph's Hospital (Cal.), 48 Pac. 68; Strodder v. Southern Granite Co., 99 Ga. 595, 27 S. £. 174; Beasley v. Bessley, 180 I11. 163, 54 N. E. 187; Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Herr, 135 Ind. 591, 35 N. E. 556; Albs v. Billings, 6 Metc 415, 39 Am. Dec. 744; Arnold v. Richmond Works, 1 Gray, 434; Weickgenant v. Eccles, 173 Mich. 695, 140 N. W. 513; Whitcomb v. Hardy, 73 Minn. 285,76 N. W. 29; Gibson p. Western, etc, R. Co., 164 Pa. 142, 30 Atl. 308, 44 Am. St Rep. 686.

25Arnold v. Richmond Works, 1 Gray, 434. But see Alabama, etc., Ry. v. Jones, 73 Miss. 110, 19 So. 105, 56 Am. St. Rep. 488.

26 Cockrill v. Cockrill, 92 Fed. 811, 34 C. C. A. 254; Barry v. St. Joseph's Hospital (Cal.), 48 Pac. 68; Strodder v. Southern Granite Co., 99 Ga, 595, 27 S. E. 174; Bunn P. Postell, 107 Ga. 490, 33 S. E. 707; Weber v. Bottger, 172 Ia. 418, 154 N. W. 579; Spicer v. Holbrook, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 865, 96 S. W. 571; Morris v. Gt. Northern Ry. Co., 67 Minn. 74, 69 N. W. 628. See also Wright v. Fisher, 65 Mich. 275, 284, 32 N. W. 605, 8 Am. St. Rep. 886. In Weickgenant v. Eccles, 173 Mich. 695, 140 N. W. 513, an insane person sold his business and covenated not to compete with the buyer. On his recovery no attempt was made to avoid the sale nor was it complained of as unfair; and it was held that he was bound by the covenant.

27Bunn v. Postell, 107 Ga. 490, 33 8. E. 707; Bullard v. Moor, 158 Mass. 418, 33 N. E. 928.

28 Langley v. Langley, 45 Ark. 392, 397; Orr v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 107 Ga. 499, 33 8. E. 708; Downham v. Holloway, 158 Ind. 626, 64 N. E. 82, 92 Am. St. Rep. 330.

29 Baldwyn v. Smith, [1900] 1 Ch. 588.

30Eldredge p. Palmer, 185 111 618, 57 N. E. 770, 76 Am. St. Rep. 69; Hull v. Louth, 109 Ind. 315, 10 N. E. 270, 58 Am. St. Rep. 405; Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Herr, 135 Ind. 591, 35 N. E. 556; Alexander v. Haskins, 68 Iowa, 73, 25 N. W. 935; Reason v. Jones, 119 Mich. 672, 78 N. W. 899.

31 Gingrich v. Rogers, 69 Neb. 527, 96 N. W. 156. See also Rannells v. Gerner, 80 Mo. 474.

32Harmon v. Harmon, 61 Fed. 113; Allen v. Berryhill, 27 Iowa, 534; Breckenridge v. Ormsby, 1 J. J. Marsh. 236, 239, 19 Am. Dec. 71; At-wdl v. Jenkins, 163 Mass. 362, 40 N. E. 178, 28 L. R. A. 694, 47 Am. St. Rep. 463. Compare Ashley v. Holman, 15 S. C. 97, where the court seemed to regard any liability of the other party to be quasi-contractual,

33 Atwell v. Jenkins, 163 Mass. 362, 40 N. E. 178, 28 L. R. A. 694, 47 Am. St. Rep. 463. See, however. Waller v. Julius, 68 Kane. 314, 74 Pac. 157, where it was held that one in possession of land might set up the invalidity of a deed made by an insane owner, in view of the facts that no consideration was paid by the grantee and he knew of the insanity.

34 Brumbaugh v. Richcreek, 127 Ind. 240, 26 N. E. 664, 22 Am. St. Rep. 649. Cf. Riley v. Carter, 76 Md. 581. 25 All. 667, 19 L. R, A. 489, 35 Am, St. Rep. 443, where it was held that creditors might attack a general assignment made by their debtor for the benefit of his creditors on the ground that he was insane.

35 Bunn v. Postell, 107 Ga. 490, 33 S. E. 707.

36 Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Herr, 135 Ind. 591, 35 N. E. 556.

37 See tupra,Sec. 235.