64Creagh v. Tunstall, 98 Ala. 249, 12 So. 713; Merwin's App., 72 Conn. 167, 172, 43 Atl- 1055, 1057; Sawyer v. Luflrin, 56 Me. 308; Darby v. Cabanne, 1 Mo. App. 126; Stannard v. Bums, 63 Vt. 244, 22 Atl. 460; Maughan v. Bums, 64 Vt. 316, 23 Atl. 583. But not if the guardian is making adequate provision. Hamilton v. Pickett {Conn.), 104 Atl. 162.

65Buries v. Pipkin, 69 N. C. 613.

66 Richardson v. Strong, 13 Ired. L. 106, 55 Am. Dec. 430. See Edson v. Hammond, 142 N. Y. App. Div. 693, 127 N. Y. S. 359.

67 Lyon v. Minor, 174 Mich. 114, 140 N. W. 517, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 67.

68Drew v. Nunn, 4 Q. B. D. 661;

Pearl v. McDowell, 3 J. J. Marsh. 659, 20 Am. Deo. 199; Dalton v. Dalton, 172 Ky. 585, 189 S. W. 902; Shaw v. Thompson, 16 Pick. 198, 26 Am. Dec. 655; Stuckey v. Mathes, 24 Hun, 461.

69See supra, $243; and Bank of Rector v. Parrish, 131 Ark. 216, 198 S. W. 689.

70 In re Beavan, [19121 1 Ch. 196. See criticism of this case in 25 Harv. L. Rev. 725. In Henry v Knight (Ind. App.), 122 N. E. 675, one who furnished support to a lunatic, which another was bound by contract to furnish was held entitled to be subrogated to the lunatic beoefioiary's right to enforce the contract.

different kinds of lunatics or different kinds of insanity. It was indeed recognized from early times that a lunatic might enjoy lucid intervals and that contracts made during such intervals were valid.71 This rule, of course, still prevails.72 In modern times it has, however, been recognized that a person may be insane for some purposes and yet be perfectly able to reason upon other matters. The question, therefore, should depend and, according to the great weight of modern authority, does depend upon whether the alleged lunatic had sufficient reason to enable him to understand the nature and effect of the act in dispute.73 It is not necessary, however, that a person should have average mental capacity in order to make a valid bargain. Mere weakness of mind or a condition approaching imbecility is not sufficient to constitute what the law regards as insanity.74 Such condition, however, is highly important, for frequently advantage is taken by designing persons of those in this way partially disqualified to protect themselves, and evidence of weakness of mind, together with other circumstances, may be important in establishing that a bargain is voidable for fraud or undue influence, although it fails to establish insanity. If insanity is established the burden is upon one who claims that a transaction took place during a lucid interval to show sufficient capacity at the time in question,75 but this rule has been denied if the insanity is only occasional and intermittent.76

71 Beverley's Case, 4 Co. Rep. 123b; Hall v. Warren, 9 Ves. 605.

72 Critchfield v. Easterdsy, 26 App. D. C. 89; Lilly v. Waggoner, 27 111. 395; Jones' Admr. v. Perkins, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 222; Richardson v. Smart, 152 Mo. 623, 54 S. W. 542, 75 Am. St. Rep. 488; Gingrich v. Rogers, 69 Neb. 527, 96 N. W. 156; Wright v. Market Bank (Tenn. Ch. App.), 60 S. W. 623; McPeck v. Graham, 56 W. Va. 200, 49 8. E. 125.

73Baldwyn v. Smith, [1900] 1 Ch. 588; Parker v. Marco, 76 Fed. Rep. 510; Pike v. Pike, 104 Ala. 642, 16 So. 689; More p. Calkins, 85 Cal. 177, 24 Pac. 729; Ratliff v. Battler's Adm., 13 Idaho, 152, 89 Pac. 71; Searle v. Galbraith, 73 111. 269; Weller v. Cope-land, 285 111. 150, 120 N. E. 578; Raymond v. Wathen, 142 Ind. 367,41 N. E. 815; Elwood v. O'Brien, 105 Iowa, 239, 74 N. W. 740; Swartwood v. Chance, 131 Iowa, 714, 109 N. W. 297; Mathews v. Nash, 151 Is. 125, 130 N. W. 796;

Meigs v. Dexter, 172 Mass. 217, 52 N. E. 75; Sutcliffe p. Heatley (Mass.), 122 N. E. 317; Chadwell v. Reed, 198 Mo. 369, 96 S. W. 227; Dewey p. All-gire, 37 Neb. 610, 40 Am. St. Rep, 468; Dennett v. Dennett, 44 N. H. 531, 84 Am. Dec. 97; Sbarbero v. Miller, 72 N. J. Eq. 248, 65 Atl. 472; Aidrich d. Bailey, 132 N. Y. 85, 30 N. E. 264; Aikens v. Roberts, 164 N. Y. S. 602; Sprinkle v. Wellborn, 140 N. C. 163, 111 Am. St. Rep. 827; Cathcart v. Matthews, 105 S. Car. 329, 89 S. E. 1021; Buckey v. Buckey, 38 W. Va. 168, 18 S.E.383.

74Soberanes v. Soberanes, 106 Cal. I, 39 Pac. 39, 527; Harrison p. Otley, 101 Iowa, 652, 70 N. W. 724; En-twistle v. Meikle, 180 111. 9, 21, 64 N. E. 217; Richardson v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 109 Me. 117, 82 Atl. 1005; Wherry v. Latimer, 103 Miss. 524, 60 So. 563; Mulloy v. Ingalls, 4 Neb. 116; Ducker v. Whiteon, 112 N. C. 44, 16 S. E. 854.