In order to affect the power of a person to bind himself by contract, it is now held that there must be such a degree of mental weakness at the time of making the contract as will materially affect his ability to contract. Slight departure from the normal type is insufficient to affect his legal status.1 A person may be absent-minded,2 or ill, infirm and subject to the influence of others,3 without being insane in this sense. It is not necessary that he should be at his best, mentally.4 Impairment of mental power is not necessarily incapacity;5 and old age and weakness of mind do not necessarily incapacitate.6 Nor is it insanity where a grantor is so worried over financial troubles as to make a foolish contract.7 So the fact that one has been deaf and dumb from birth does not conclusively establish his insanity;8 and a belief in spiritualism is compatible with capacity to convey realty.9 On the other hand, a person may be so insane as to affect his capacity to make a valid contract without being totally devoid of reason.10

1 Mann v. Bank, 86 Fed. 51; White v. Farley, 81 Ala. 563; 8 So. 215; Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660; 10 So. 97; Richardson v. Adams, 110 Ga. 425; 35 S. E. 648; Kelly v. Perrault, 5 Ida. 221; 48 Pac. 45; Shea v. Murphy, 164 111. 614; 56 Am. St. Rep. 215; 45 N. E. 1021; Hall v. Ins. Co. (Ky.) ; 43 S. W. 194; Frush v. Green, 86 Md. 494; 39 Atl. 863; Cutler v. Zollinger, 117 Mo. 92; 22 S. W. 895; Swank v. Swank, 37 Or. 439; 61 Pac. 846.

2 Galer v. Galer, 108 Ia. 496; 79 N. W. 257.

3 Nance v. Stockburger, 111 Ga.

821; 36 S. E. 100; Seward v. Seward, 59 Kan. 387; 53 Pac. 63; Paine v. Aldrich, 133 N. Y. 544; 30 N. E. 725; Chadd v. Moser, 25 Utah 369; 71 Pac. 870.

4 Ralston v. Turpin, 129 U. S. 663.

5 Harrison v. Otley, 101 Ia. 652; 70 N. W. 724; Paine v. Aldrich, 133 N. Y. 544; 30 N. E. 725.

6 Wheatley v. Wheatley, 102 Ia. 737; 70 N. W. 689; Trimbo v. Trim-bo, 47 Minn. 389; 50 N. W. 350; Delaplain v. Grubb, 44 W. Va. 612; 67 Am. St. Rep. 788; 30 S. E. 201.

7 De Witt v. Mattison, 26 Neb. 655; 42 N. W. 742.

The test now adopted by the weight of authority is that in order to affect contractual power, the insanity must be of such a sort that it renders the victim incapable of understanding with reasonable clearness what he is doing; what is the nature and effect of the transaction in which he is engaging.11 This rule recognizes that a man may have full power to make contracts without being able to manage his own affairs in a reasonable and prudent manner.12 The statement of the rule further shows that in order to affect contractual capacity, the mental derangement must be such as not merely can prevent this fair and reasonable understanding on his part of some of his acts; but it must further be such as does in fact prevent his understanding the nature and result of the act under judicial investigation.13 As expressed in a recent Massachusetts case, an insane delusion must be the "moving cause" of a deed or a contract in order to invalidate it,14 and one may be sane enough to transact simple business and yet too insane for complicated matters.15 Accordingly, though it has been said that it requires a higher degree of capacity to exchange lands than to make a will,16 the better view is that capacity to contract and capacity to make a will are so different in many points that they should not be compared. Since the condition of the contracting party at the time of making the contract determines its validity, the contract of one ordinarily insane is valid if made during a lucid interval.17 The earlier authorities do not always recognize the rules just given. In some cases apparently any degree of insanity was held to destroy contractual capacity ;18 in others, nothing short of a total lack of reason would have that effect.19 Weakness of mind not caused by technical insanity may avoid a contract. A judgment note given by one dying of meningitis, who is in such physical and mental condition that he does not understand the nature of the act is invalid.20 If a person not technically in the class of the insane or imbecile, but below the normal type of mental capacity is subjected to fraud or duress, and he is thereby misled or coerced, relief is given against contracts into which he is induced to enter by such means. This topic does not involve any technical consideration of capacity and is discussed elsewhere.21

8 Christmas v. Mitchell, 3 Ired. Eg. (N. C.) 535.

9 Connor v. Stanley, 72 Cal. 556; 1 Am. St. Rep. 84; 14 Pae. 306; Lewis v. Arbuckle, 85 Ia. 335; 16 L. E. A. 677: 52 X. W. 237.

10 Dominick v. Randolph, 124 Ala. 557; 27 So. 481; Hay v. Miller, 48 Neb. 156; 66 N. W. 1115; Dewey v. Algire, 37 Neb. 6; 40 Am. St. Rep. 468; 55 X. W. 276.

11 Griffith v. Godey. 113 U. S. 89; Allore v. Jewell. 94 U. S. 506; Sands v. Potter, 165 111. 397; 56 Am. St. Rep. 253; 46 X. E. 282; affirming 59 111. App. 206; Lindsey v. Lind-sey, 50 111. 79: 99 Am. Dee. 489; Teegarden v. Lewis. 145 Ind. 98; 40 N. E. 1047; 44 N. E. 9; Raymond v. Wathen, 142 Ind. 367; 41 N. E. 815; Elwood v. O'Brien. 105 Ia. 239; 74 X. W. 740; Milks v. Milks, 129 Mieh. 164; 88 X. W. 402; Jamison v. Culligan, 151 Mo.

410; 52 S. W. 224; Boggess v. Bog-gess, 127 Mo. 305; 29 S. W. 1018; State v. Grand Lodge, 78 Mo. App. 546; Dennett v. Dennett, 44 X. H. 531; 84 Am. Dec. 97; Young v. Stevens, 48 X. H. 133; 97 Am. Dec. 592; Kastell v. Hillman, 53 N. J. Eq. 49; 30 Atl. 535; Wilkinson v. Shernian. 45 X. J. Eq. 413; 18 Atl. 228; Aldrich v. Bailey, 132 N. Y. 85; 30 X. E. 264; Valentine v. Lunt. 115 X. Y. 496; 22 X. E. 209; Riggs v. Tract Society, 95 X. Y. 503; Whitaker v. Hamilton, 126 X. C. 465; 35 S. E. 815; Carnagie v. Diven. 31 Or. 366; 49 Pac. 891; Miller v. Rutledge, 82 Va. 863; 1 S. E. 202; Buckey v. Buckey. 38 W. Va. 168; 18 S. E. 383; Wright v. Jackson, 59 Wis. 569; 18 X. W. 486.

12 Moffitt v. Witherspoon, 10 Ired. (X. C.) 185.

13 Wetter v. Habersham, 60 Ga.

184; Emery v. Hoyt. 46 111. 258; Burgess v. Pollock, 53 Ia. 273: 36 Am. Rep. 218; 5 N. W. 179; Meigs v. Dexter, 172 Mass. 217; 52 N. E. 75; Holyoke v. Haskins, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 20; 16 Am. Dec. 372; Ben-oist v. Murrin, 58 Mo. 307; Concord v. Rumney, 45 N. H. 423; Loder v. Loder, 34 Neb. 824; 52 N. W. 814; Wilkinson v. Sherman. 45 N. J. Eq. 413; 18 Atl. 228; Pidcock v. Potter, 68 Pa. St. 342; 8 Am. Rep. 181; Mays v. Prewett, 98 Tenn. 474; 40 S. W. 483.

14 Meigs v. Dexter. 172 Mass. 217; 52 N. E. 75.

15 Seerley v. Sater, 68 Ia. 375; 27 N. W. 262.

16 Turner v. Haupt, 53 N. J. Eq. 526; 33 Atl. 28.

17 Lilly v. Waggoner, 27 111. 395; Jones v. Perkins, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 222; Richardson v. Smart, 152 Mo. 623; 75 Am. St. Rep. 488; 54 S. W. 542; Gangwere's Estate. 14 Pa. St. 417; 53 Am. Dec. 554; Wright v. Bank (Tenn. Ch. App.), 60 S. W. 623.

18 Owing's Case, 1 Bland Ch. (Md.) 370; 17 Am. Dec. 311.

19 Stewart v. Lispenhard. 26 Wend. (N. .Y.) 255; Jackson v. King. 4 Cow. (X. Y.) 207; 15 Am. Dec. 354.

20 Redward v. Campbell, 166 Pa. St. 365; 31 Atl. 114.