Md. 581; 35 Am. St. Rep. 443; 19 L. R. A. 489; 25 Atl. 667; Flach v. Gottschalk Co., 88 Md. 368; 71 Am. St. Rep. 418; 42 L. R. A. 745; 41 Atl. 908; Gibson v. Soper, 6 Gray (Mass.) 279; 66 Am. Dec. 414; Morris v. Ry. Co., 67 Minn. 74; 69 N. W. 628; Schaps v. Lehner, 54 Minn. 208; 55 N. W. 911; McKenzie v. Donnell, 151 Mo. 431; 52 S. W. 214; Dewey v. Allgire, 37 Neb. 6; 40 Am. St. Rep. 468; 55 N. W. 276; Young v. Stevens, 48 N. H. 133; 97 Am. Dec. 592; Matthiessen, etc., Co. v. McMahon, 38 N. J. L. 536; Memphis, etc., Bank v. Sneed, 97 Tenn. 120; 56 Am. St. Rep. 788; 34 L. R. A. 274; 36 S. W. 716; Lincoln v. Buckmaster, 32 Vt. 652. 2 Burnham v. Kidwell, 113 111. 425; Scanlon v. Cobb, 85 111. 296; Alexander v. Haskins, 68 Ia. 73; 25 N. W. 935; Gribben v. Maxwell. 34 Kan. 8; 55 Am. Rep. 233; 7 Pac. 584; Young v. Stevens, 48 N. H. 133; 97 Am. Dec. 592; Matthiessen v. McMahon, 38 N. J. L. 536; Yaurule "not so much upon the idea that (the transaction) possesses the legal essential of consent, but rather because, by means of an apparent contract he has secured an advantage or benefit which cannot be restored to the other party, and therefore it would be inequitable to permit him or those in privity with him to repudiate it."3 Thus a compromise with an insane person before adjudication of insanity can be avoided only on his placing the adversary in statu quo.4 It has even been held that a fair deed will not be set aside where the grantee cannot be placed in statu quo and had no knowledge of the insanity of the grantor except that he had once been sent to an insane asylum.5 But if the vendor has a mortgage upon the property conveyed by him to the vendee and also on other property, the vendee if insane may avoid without offer to return the property sold to him as a condition precedent.6

But where the prima facie rule of law is that the services rendered or property furnished are rendered gratuitously, as where a daughter renders services for her father,7 or a husband pays money for the support of his wife and step-daughter,8 and the party rendering the services claims that it was done under a contract, no return need be made in such cases for the consideration furnished if the party receiving the services is shown to have been insane. Where the consideration was furnished not to the insane person, but to another, as where money was loaned to a husband secured by a mortgage on his insane wife's property,9 or where an education was furnished to a nephew and ger v. Skinner, 14 N. J. Eq. 389; Insurance Co. v. Hunt, 79 N. Y. 541; Riggan v. Green, 80 N. C. 236; 30 Am. Rep. 77; Lancaster Bank v. Moore, 78 Pa. St. 407; 21 Am. Rep. 24; Beals v. See, 10 Pa. St. 56; 49 Am. Dec. 573; Sims v. McLure, 8 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 286; 70 Am. Dec. 196.

3 Flach v. Gottschalk Co., 88 Md. 368, 375; 71 Am. St. Rep. 418; 42 L. R. A. 745; 41 Atl. 908.

4 Morris v. Ry. Co., 67 Minn. 74; 69 N. W. 628.

5 Schaps v. Lehner, 54 Minn. 208; 55 N. W. 911.

6 Bates v. Hyman (Miss.), 28 So. 567. (The vendor's right in the property sold being fully secured by mortgage.)

7 Kostuba v. Miller, 137 Mo. 161; 38 S. W. 946.

8 Natcher v. Clark, 151 Ind. 368; 51 N. E. 468.

9 North Western, etc., Co. v. Blan-kenship, 94 Ind. 535; 48 Am. Rep. 185.

10 Physio-Medical College v. Wilkinson, 108 Ind. 314; 9 N. E. 167.

11 Musselman v. Cravens, 47 Ind. 1; Van Patton v. Beals, 46 Ia. 62.

12 Bank v. Sneed, 97 Tenn. 120; 56 Am. St. Rep. 788; 34 L. R. A. 274; 36 S. W. 716.

13 Chew v. Bank, 14 Md. 299, as explained in Flach v. Gottschalk Co., 88 Md. 368; 71 Am. St. Rep. 418; 42 L. R. A. 745; 41 Atl. 908.

14 Allore v. Jewell, 94 U. S. 506; Harding v. Wheaton, 2 Mason (U. S.) 278; Henry v. Fine, 23 Ark. 417: Thrash v. Starbuck, 145 Ind. 673; 44 N. E. 543; Hale v. Kobbert, 109 Ia. 128; 80 N. W. 308; Clark v. Lopez, 75 Miss. 932; 23 So. 648; rehearing denied, 23 So. 957; Matthiessen, etc., Co. v. McMahon, 38 N. J. L. 536; Creekmore v. Baxter, 121 N. C. 31; 27 S. E. 994; Hosier v. Beard, 54 O. S. 398; 56 Am. St. Rep. 720; 35 L. R. A. 161; 43 N. E. 1040; Crawford v. Scovell, 94 Pa. St. 48; 39 Am. Rep. 766.

15 Hale v. Kobbert, 109 Ia. 128; 80 N. W. 308; Halley v. Troester, 72 Mo. 73; Wager v. Wagoner, 53 Neb. 511; 73 N. W. 937; Crawford v. Scovell, 94 Pa. St. 48; 39 Am. Rep. 766; Garrow v. Brown. Winst. Eq. (N. C.) 46; 86 Am. Dec. 450; Sims v. McLure, 8 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 286: 70 Am. Dec. 196.

16 Mulligan v. Albertz, 103 Wis. 140; 78 N. W. 1093.

17 Kramer v. Williamson, 135 Ind. 655; 35.N. E. 388.

18 Hale v. Kobbert, 109 Ia. 128; 80 X. W. 308.

19 Eldredge v. Palmer, 185 111. 618; 76 Am. St. Rep. 59; 57 N. E. 770, where there was a profit of about $500 in an exchange of valuable real estate.

20 Crawford v. Scovell, 94 Pa. St. 48; 39 Am. Rep. 766.

21 Thrash v. Starbuck, 145 Ind. 673; 44 X. E. 543; Wager v. Wagoner, 53 Neb. 511; 73 X. W. 937.

22 Helbreg v. Schumann, 150 111. 12; 41 Am. St. Rep. 339; 37 X. E. 99; Encking v. Simmons, 28 Wis. 272.

23 Creekmore v. Baxter, 121 X. C. 31; 27 S. E. 994.

24 Physio-Medical College v. Wilkinson. 108 Ind. 314; 9 X. E. 167; Alexander v. Haskins, 68 Ia. 73; 25 X. W. 935.

25 Cathcart v. Sugenheimer, 18 S. C. 123. (In this case the sale was made by the committee, not by the insane person.) But in German, part to pay off a prior mortgage on the same property, the second mortgagee is subrogated to the rights of the first mortgagee.20 In some states the right to rescind seems to be recognized even where the adversary party cannot be placed in statu quo.27