The remaining contracts of an insane person are voidable in the sense that by taking proper steps the insane person or his representatives may disaffirm them. This includes ordinary executory contracts,1 and executed conveyances of property,2 as a bill of sale by an insane person to his father in consideration of his paying debts of the son which were not incurred for necessaries,3 mortgages,4 the forfeiture of a mortgage for non-payment of installments due before the mortgagor was adjudged insane,5 a sale of realty after insanity under a power of sale in a mortgage given before insanity,6 and the release of a mortgage.7 So the lunacy of a partner makes the deed of the firm voidable.8 Thus a conveyance by an insane person is "voidable; that is, it may be confirmed or set aside."9 In some states a conveyance by an insane person is said to be invalid until it is ratified,10 but the better view is that such deed is valid until set aside.11 "Until disaffirmed the voidable executed contract in respect to the property or benefits conveyed passes the right or title as fully as an unimpeachable contract. By ratification it becomes impervious; by disaffirmance, a nullity."12 However, in some cases it has been said that such deeds were void.13 The fact that the property has been sold,14 or mort-

13 Richardson v. Strong, 13 Ired. L. (N. C.) 106; 55 Am. Dec. 430.

14 Carter v. Beckwith, 128 N. Y. 312; 28 N. E. 582.

15 Freeman's Appeal (Pa.), 13 Atl. 552; 22 W. N. C. 173.

16 First National Bank v. McGin-ty, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 539; 69 S. W. 495.

1 Luffboro v. Foster, 92 Ala. 477; 9 So. 281; Bunn v. Postell, 107 Ga. 490; 33 S. E. 707; Schuff v. Ransom, 79 Ind. 458; Copenrath v. Kienby, 83 Ind. 18; Boyer v. Berry-man, 123 Ind. 451; 24 N. E. 249; Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Herr, 135 Ind. 591; 35 N. E. 556; Aetna, etc., Co. v. Sellers, 154 Ind. 370; 77 Am. St. Rep. 481; 56 N. E. 97; Allen v. Berryhill, 27 Ia. 534; Hovey v. Hobson, 53 Me. 451; 89 Am. Dec. 705; Allis v. Billings, 6 Met. (Mass.)

415; 39 Am. Dec. 744; Arnold v. Iron Works, 1 Gray (Mass.) 434; Carrier v. Sears, 4 All. (Mass.) 336; 81 Am. Dec. 707; Campbell v. Kuhn, 45 Mich. 513; 40 Am. Rep. 479; 8 N. W. 523; Bates v. Hyman (Miss.), 28 So. 567; Nicholas, etc., Co. v. Hard-man, 62 Mo. App. 153; Eaton v. Eaton, 37 N. J. L. 108; 18 Am. Rep. 716; Ingraham v. Baldwin, 9 N. Y. 45; Hanley v. Loan Co., 44 W. Va. 450; 29 S. E. 1002.

2 Luhrs v. Hancock, 181 U. S. 567; Woolley v. Gaines, 114 Ga. 122; 88 Am. St. Rep. 22; 39 S. E. 892; Burnham v. Kidwell, 113 111. 425; Copenrath v. Kienby. 83 Ind. 18; Fay v. Burditt, 81 Ind. 433; 42 Am. Rep. 142; Sedgwick v. Jack, 111 Ia. 745; 82 N. W. 1027; Brown v. Cory. 9 Kan. App. 702; 59 Pac.

1097; Gribben v. Maxwell, 34 Kan. 8; 55 Am. Rep. 233; 7 Pac. 584; Breckenridge v. Ormsby, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 236; 19 Am. Dee. 71; Riley v. Carter, 76 Md. 581; 35 Am. St. Rep. 443; 19 L. R. A. 489; 25 Atl. 667; Reason v. Jones, 119 Mich. 672; 78 N. W. 899; Thorpe v. Hans-eom, 64 Minn. 201; 66 N. W. 1; McAnaw v. Tiffin, 143 Mo. 667; 45 S. W. 656; Hay v. Miller, 48 Neb. 156; Riggan v. Green, 80 N. C. 236; 30 Am. Rep. 77; Crawford v. Sco-vell, 94 Pa. St. 48; 39 Am. Rep. 766; Wille v. Wille. 57 S. C. 413; 35 S. E. 804; Pearson v. Cox, 71 Tex. 246; 10 Am. St. Rep. 740; 9 S. W. 124; French Lumbering Co. v. Theriault, 107 Wis. 627; 51 L. R. A. 910; 83 N. W. 927.

3 Wilkins v. Wilkins, 35 Neb. 212; 52 N. W. 1109.

4 Fay v. Burditt, 81 Ind. 433; 42 Am. Rep. 142; Creekmore v. Baxter, 121 N. C. 31; 27 S. E. 994.

5 Helbreg v. Schumann, 150 111. 12; 41 Am. St. Rep. 339; 37 N. E. 99.

6 Encking v. Simmons, 28 Wis. 272.

7 Aetna, etc., Co. v. Sellers, 154 Ind. 370; 77 Am. St. Rep. 481; 56 N. E. 97.

8 Riley v. Carter, 76 Md. 581; 35 Am. St. Rep. 443; 19 L. R. A. 489; 25 Atl. 667.

9 Luhrs v. Hancock, 181 U. S. 567, 574.

10 Brigham v. Fayerweather, 144 Mass. 48; 10 N. E. 735; Valpey v. Rea, 130 Mass. 384.

11 Downham v. Holloway, 158 Ind. 626; 92 Am. St. Rep. 330; 64 N. E. 82.

12 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Sellers, 154 Ind. 370. 372; 77 Am. St. Rep. 481; 56 N. E. 97.

13 Dexter v. Hall, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 9; Galloway v. McLain. 131 Ala. 280; 31 So. 603; Van Deusen v. Sweet, 51 N. Y. 378; Farley v. Parker. 6 Or. 105; 25 Am. Rep. 504; In re Desilver. 5 Rawle (Pa.) 1ll; 28 Am. Dec. 645.

14 Elder v. Schumacher, 18 Colo. 433; 33 Pac. 175; Gray v. Turley, gaged15 to a bona fide purchaser or mortgagee, does not deprive the insane grantor of the right to disaffirm,16 even where part of the money raised by the mortgage was applied to the support of the insane person.17 The contrary view is held by a few courts, however.18 Insanity avoids a contract and also a decree of foreclosure taken in pursuance thereof.19 So a judgment confessed by an insane person and sales thereunder are voidable.20 Thus if an insane person buys chattels on credit, giving a note for the purchase price secured by a deed of trust on such chattels and on certain land, and containing a provision for the payment of attorney fees, no relief can be given other than a decree for the sale of the chattels.21 A waiver of rights in a legal proceeding is always voidable.22 But in Louisiana it seems to be held that the contract of an insane person before adjudication of insanity can be avoided only if the adversary party knew or must have known of such insanity.23 It is sometimes said that negotiable instruments, executed by an insane person, are void.24 If the word "void" is not used carelessly for voidable, this holding is then based on the theory that these instruments must be either negotiable in the technical sense, and therefore valid in the hands of bona fide holders, or else void. The true rule is intermediate between these extreme positions. It is that in a negotiable contract of an insane person, "the quality of negotiability does not attach to it, though made negotiable in form,"25 and it is therefore voidable, not only in the hands of the payee, but in those even of an indorsee for value, without notice and before maturity.26 This is especially true as to a holder with notice of insanity but not of guardianship.27 By analogy, the indorsement of an insane person should be voidable only, and valid against the maker unless avoided, and . it has been so held.28 The decided weight of authority, it must be admitted, however, is the other way.29 Some authorities have even held that a contract with one known to be insane is absolutely void.30 In Georgia it has been said to be "a general rule of universal law that the contracts of a lunatic, idiot or other person non compos mentis from age or other infirmity are utterly void."31 The Georgia case is affected by the Georgia statute and by the fact that the insane person had been adjudicated insane in a state where he was domiciled. The cases cited do not bear out the general proposition, which does not seem to be adhered to even in Georgia.32 A grantee who accepts a deed from a grantor whom he knows to be insane is "guilty of meditated fraud,"33 but while such deed is voidable it was, in this case, not necessary to decide if it was not absolutely void.34 Other states have held that a contract cannot be avoided where the contract was fair and the adversary neither know nor had any reason to know of the insanity.35 Thus it has been held that a partnership contract with a third person who does not know that one of the partners is insane, is valid,36 but otherwise if such person knows of the insanity.37 Other states have insisted that good faith, fair dealing and ignorance of the insanity do not prevent the insane person from disaffirming.38 "The fairness of defendant's conduct cannot supply the plaintiff's want of capacity."39 The better view at Modern Law seems to be that the knowledge or ignorance of the insanity possessed by the adversary party does not affect the validity of the contract, but does determine the rule as to the return of the consideration.40

110 Ind. 254; 11 N. E. 40; McKen-zie v. Donnell, 151 Mo. 461; 52 S. W. 222.

15 German, etc., Society v. De Lashmutt, 67 Fed. 399; Hull v. Louth, 109 Ind. 315; 58 Am. Rep. 405; 10 N. E. 270.

16 Hovey v. Hobson, 53 Me. 451; 89 Am. Dec. 705; Chew v. Bank, 14 Md. 299; Rogers v. Blackwell, 49 Mich. 192; 13 N. W. 512; Dewey V. Allgire, 37 Neb. 6; 40 Am. St. Rep. 468; 55 N. W. 276.

17 German, etc.. Society v. De Lashmutt, 67 Fed. 399.

18 Myers v. Knabe, 51 Kan. 720; 33 Pac. 602; Odom v. Riddick, 104

N. C. 515; 17 Am. St. Rep. 686; 7 L. R. A. 118; 10 S. E. 609.

19 Lockwood v. Mitchell, 7 O. S. 387; 70 Am. Dec. 78.

20 Crawford v. Thomson, 161 111. 161; 43 N. E. 617.

21 Bates v. Hyman (Miss.), 28 So. 567.

22 North v. Joslin, 59 Mich. 624; 26 N. W. 810.

23 Martinez v. Moll, 46 Fed. 724; Wolf v. Edwards, 106 La. 477; 31 So. 58.

24 Van Patton v. Beals, 46 Ia. 62; Seaver v. Phelps, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 304; 22 Am. Dec. 372.

25 Hosier v. Beard, 54 0. S. 398;. 56 Am. St. Rep. 720; 35 L. R. A. 161; 43 N. E. 1040.

26 McClain v. Davis, 77 Ind. 419; Hosier v. Beard, 54 O. S. 398; 56 Am. St. Rep. 720; 35 L. R. A. 161; 43 X. E. 1040; Wireback v. Bank, 97 Pa. St. 543; 39 Am. Rep. 821; Moore v. Hershey, 90 Pa. St. 196. This point was queried in Milligan v. Pollard, 112 Ala. 465; 20 So. 620.

27 Bradbury v. Place (Me.), 10 Atl. 461.

28 Carrier v. Sears, 4 All. (Mass.) 336; 81 Am. Dec. 707.

29 Jeneson v. Jeneson, 66 111. 259 ; Hannahs v. Sheldon, 20 Mich. 278; Burke v. Allen, 29 N. II. 106; 61 Am. Dec. 642.

30 Fecel v. Guinault, 32 La. Ann.

91. Contra, Louisville, etc., Ry. v. Herr, 135 Ind. 591; 35 X. E. 556.

31 American, etc., Co. v. Boone, 102 Ga. 202; 66 Am. St. Rep. 167; 40 L. R. A. 250; 29 S. E. 182; quoting 1 Daniel on Negot. Inst. Sec. 209 (4th ed.), and citing Dexter v. Hall, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 9; Anglo-Califor-nian Bank v. Ames, 27 Fed. 727; Seaver v. Phelps, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 304; 22 Am. Dec. 372; Rogers v. Blackwell, 49 Mich. 192; 13 X. W. 512.

32 Bunn V. Postle, 107 Ga. 490; 33 S. E. 707; Orr v. Mortgage Co., 107 Ga. 499; 33 S. E. 708.

33 Clay v. Hammond, 199 111. 370; 93 Am. St. Rep. 146; 65 X. E. 352.

34 Clay v. Hammond, 199 111. 370; 93 Am. St. Rep. 146; 65 X. E. 352.