In the discussion thus far it has been assumed that the lunatic was not under guardianship. When a guardian is appointed he thereupon becomes vested with the control of the property of his ward, and he alone is capable of transferring it.77 It may also be assumed that all contracts of a lunatic made during guardianship are held void.78 The guardian represents the lunatic for the purpose of all business transactions. So far is this doctrine carried that even though the lunatic has a lucid interval or regains his reason while the guardianship still easts a transaction with him is void.79

75 Rogers v. Rogers, 6 Pen. 267 (Del.), 66 At!. 374; Richardson v. Smart, 152 Mo. 623, 54 S. W. 542, 75 Am. St. Rep. 488; Gingrich v. Rogers, 60 Neb. 527, 96 N. W. 156; Fishbume v. Ferguson, 84 Va. 87, 4 S. E. 575.

76McPeck p. Graham, 56 W. Va. 200, 40 8. E. 125.

77Re Walker, [1905] 1 Ch. 160; Cockrill v. CockrilL 92 Fed. 811, 34 C. G. A. 254; McKenzie v. Donnell, 151 Mo. 431, 52 S. W. 214; Hughes v. Jones, 116 N. Y. 67, 22 N. E. 446, 5 L. R. A. 632, 15 Am. St. Rep. 386; Sander v. Savage, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 333, 78 N. Y. S. 189.

78 Griswold v. Butler, 3 Conn. 227; Church v. Rosenatein, 85 Conn. 270, 82 Atl. 568; Weeks v. Reliance Fertiliser Co., 20 Ga. App. 498, 93 S. E. 152; Bradbury v. Place (Me.), 10 Atl 461; Wait v. Maxwell, 5 Pick. 217, 16 Am. Dec. 301; Leonard v. Leonard, 14 Pick. 280; Lynch v. Dodge, 130 Mass. 458; Knox v. Haug, 48 Minn. 58, 50 N. W. 934; Rannells v. Gerner, 80

Mo. 474; McKenzie v. Donnell, 156 Mo. 431, 451, 458, 52 S. W. 214; Bur-gedorff v. Hamer, 05 Neb. 113, 145 N. W. 250. But see Taylor v. Superior Court, 30 R. I. 560, 76 Atl. 644, where the court held the guardian might ratify legal proceedings begun by the as to be incapable in fact of understanding the nature of the transaction in which he engaged.85

79 In re Walker, [1905] 1 Ch. 160; Gingrich P. Rogers, 69 Neb. 527, 96 N. W. 156; Carter v. Beckwith, 128 N. Y. 312, 28 N. E. 582; Sander v. Savage, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 333, 78 N. Y. S. 189. In Leonard v. Leonard, 14 Pick. 280, 284, the court said: "We are of opinion, that as to most subjects, the decree of the probate court, so long as the guardianship continues, is conclusive evidence of the disability of the ward; but that it is not conclusive in regard to all. For example, the ward, if in fact of sufficient capacity, may make a will, for this is an act which the guardian cannot do for him." But when the guardianship has terminated for whatever cause, as by re-

The contrary has, however, been held where the lunatic has regained his reason and the guardianship had been allowed to fall into disuse although not legally terminated.80 Stress is laid in many of the cases upon whether the lunatic has been so found by inquisition. If so found it is held in some States that his transactions are void.81 The better view seems to be, however, that the finding merely establishes the fact of insanity as existing at that time, unless a statute expressly provides that the finding makes subsequent agreements void.82 It is the appointment of a guardian which works the change in the legal power of a lunatic to act for himself.83 After adjudication that he is insane, however, a man's insanity is presumed to continue in the absence of evidence to the contrary.84