The authorities are not in accord as to the effect of a conveyance inter vivos by a person mentally incapacitated. According to some decisions, such a conveyance is, like that of an infant, merely voidable,65 unless a guardian has been appointed for the grantor and his property after judicial inquisition into his sanity, in which case a conveyance subsequently made by him is ordinarily regarded as absolutely void.66 By other decisions, a conveyance by one of unsound mind is absolutely void,67 the logical result of which view would be that it can be attacked not only by the grantor and persons in privity with him, but also by third persons generally, and, further that it can be ratified by the grantor only by making another conveyance after his restoration to sanity.

Sec. 2602; 1 Woerner, Administration, Sec. 20.

63. Stanfill v. Johnson, 159 Ala. 546, 49 So. 223; Doe d. Guest v. Beerson, 2 Houst. (Del.) 246; Clarke v. Hartt, 56 Fla. 775, 47 So. 819; Lindsey v. Lindsey, 50 111. 79, 99 Am. Dec. 489; Saffer v. Mast, 223 111. 108, 79 N. E. 32; Burgess v. Pollock, 53 Iowa, 273, 36 Am. Rep. 218, 5 N. W. 179; Altig v. Altig, 137 Iowa, 420, 114 N. W. 1056; Dennett v. Dennett, 44 N. H. 531; Blakely v. Blakely, 33 N. J. Eq. 502; Nelson v. Thompson, 16 N. D. 295, 112 N. W. 1058; Corporation of Members Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints v. Watson, 30 Utah, 126, 83 Pac. 731; Stewart v. Flint, 59 Vt. 144, 8 Atl. 801; Whittaker v. Southwest Virginia Improvement Co., 34 W. Va. 217, 12 S. E. 507.

64. Dulany v. Green. 4 Har.

(Del.) 285; Harmon v. Johnston, 1 McArth. (Dist. Col.) 139; Shackleton v. Sebree, 8 111. 616; Harbison v. Lemon, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 51, 23 Am. Dec. 376; Warnock v. Campbell, 25 N. J. Eq. 485; Peck v. Cary, 27 N. Y. 9, 84 Am. Dec. 220; Spoonheim v. Spoonheim, 14 N. D. 380, 104 N. W. 845; French's Heirs v. French, 8 Ohio 214, 31 Am. Dec. 441; Burnham v. Burnham, 119 Wis. 509, 100 Am. St. Rep. 895. 97 N. W. 176.

65. Langley v. Langley, 45 Ark. 392; Jordan v. Kirkpatrick, 251 111. 116, 95 N. E. 1079; Nichol v. Thomas. 53 Ind. 42; Downham v. Holloway, 158 Ind. 626, 92 Am. St. Rep. 330, 64 N. E. 82; Breckenridge's Heirs v. Ormsby, 1 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 236; Campbell v. Kerrick, 142 Ky. 279, 134 S. W. 186; Hovey v. Hobson, 53 Me. 451; Riley v.

It has occasionally been asserted that the conveyance cannot be repudiated as against a bona fide purCarter, 76 Md. 581, 19 L. R. A. 489, 35 Am. St. Rep. 443, 25 All. 667; Allis v. Billings, 6 Metc. (Mass.) 415, 39 Am. Dec. 744; Jamison v. Culligan, 151 Mo. 410. 52 S. W. 226; Eaton v. Eaton, 37 N. J. L. 108, 18 Am. Rep. 716; Blinn v. Schwarz, 177 N. Y. 252, 101 Am. St. Rep. 806, 69 N. E. 542; Riggan v. Green, 80 N. C. 236, 30 Am. Rep. 77; William?, v. Sapieha, 94 Tex. 430, 61 S. W. 115; French Lumbering Co. v. Thenault, 107 Wis. 627, 51 L. R. A. 910, 83 N. W. 927. But, even when this view was adopted, a conveyance by a married woman was held to be absolutely void if the statute required the husband's joinder, and he was insane at the time. Leggate v. Clark, 111 Mass. 308.

66. Griswold v. Hunter, 3 Conn. 227; New England Loan & Trust Co. v. Spitler, 54 Kan. 560, 38 Pac. 799; Hovey v. Hob-son, 53 Me. 451, 89 Am. Dec. 705; Wait v. Maxwell, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 217; Thorpe v. Hansc m, 64 Minn. 201, 66 N. W. 1; Eiston v. Jasper, 45 Tex. 409. An adjudication merely that the grantor is insane, and a fit subject for custody in a hospital for the insane, does not have this effect. Dewey v. Allgire, 37 Neb. S, 40 Am. St. Rep. 468, 55 N. W. 276; Knox v. Haug, 48 Minn. 58, 50 N. W. 934; Leggate v. Clark, 111 Mass. 308. It has been decided that, if the guardianship has been in effect abandoned, the grantor having recovered his sanity, the conveyance will be supported, though the guardian has not been discharged by judicial action. Thorpe v. Hanscom, 64 Minn. 201, 66 N. W. 1; Eiston v. Jasper, 45 Tex. 409; Lower v. Schumacher, 61 Kan. 625, 60 Pac. 538; Clay v. Hammond, 199 111. 370, 93 Am. St. Rep. 146, 65 N. E. 352.

67. Dexter v. Hall, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 9, 21 L. Ed. 73; German Sav. & Loan Soc. v. De Lashmutt (C. C.) 67 Fed. 399; Galloway v. Hendon, 131 Ala. 280, 31 So. 603; Elder v. Schumacher, 18 Colo. 433, 33 Pac. 175; Sullivan v.

Avoidance. In states where the conveyance is regarded as voidable only, it may be avoided either by the grantor after he has reacquired his mental capacity, or by his heirs or personal representatives after his death,71 a or by his committee or guarFlynn, 20 Dist. Col. 396; Farley v. Parker, 6 Ore. 105; In re De Silver's Estate, 5 Rawle (Pa.) Ill; Thompson v. Leach, Comb. 468, Carth. 435. See editorial note, 6 Columbia Law Rev. 115.

68. Coburn v. Raymond, 76 Conn. 484, 100 Am. St. Rep. 1000, 57 Atl. 116; Arnett's Committee v. Owens, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1409, 65 S. W. 151; Campbell v. Kerrick, 142 Ky. 279, 134 S. W. 186; Burch v. Nicholson, 157 Iowa, 502, 137 N. W. 1066; Odom v. Riddick, 104 N. C. 515, 17 Am St. Rep. 686, 7 L. R. A. 118, 10 S. E. 609. See New England Loan & Trust Co. v. Spitler, 54 Kan. 560, 38 Pac. 799.

69. German Sav. & Loan Soc. & De Lashmutt (C. C.) 67 Fed. 399; Galloway v. McLain, 131 Ala. 280, 31 So. 603; Hull v. Louth, 109 Ind. 315, 58 Am. Rep. 405, 10 N. E. 270; Hovey v. Hobson, 53 Me. 451, 89 Am. Dec.

705; Rogers v. Blackwoll 49 Mich. 192, 13 N. W. 512; Mc-Kenzie v. Donnell, 151 Mo. 461, 52 S. W. 222; Dewey v. Allgire, 37 Neb. 6, 40 Am. St. Rep. 468, 55 N. W. 276; Valentine v. Lunt. 51 Hun. (N. Y.) 544, 3 N. Y. Supp. 906.

70. Galloway v. Hendon, 131 Ala. 280, 31 So. 603; Sullivan v. Flynn, 20 D. C. 396; Gibson v. Am. Dec. 414; Dewey v. Allgire, 37 Neb. 6, 40 Am. St. Rep. 46S, 55 N. W. 276; Rogers v. Walker, 6 Pa. St. 371, 47 Am. Dec. 470; Mitchell v. Inman, - Tex. Civ. App.- , 156 S. W. 290.

71. Post, this section, note 76. 71a. 2 Blackst. Comm. 292;

Langley v. Langley, 45 Ark. 392; Brown v. Freed, 43 Ind. 253; Turner v. Rusk, 53 Md. 65; Allis v. Billings, 6 Metc. (Mass.) 415 39 Am. Dec. 744; Valpey v. Rea, 130 Mass. 384; Brigham v. Fayerweather 144 Mass. 48, 10 dian.72 By ratifying the conveyance when mentally capable of acting; provided it is not regarded as absolutely void, the grantor precludes any subsequent avoidance thereof.73 Even though the conveyance is voidable only, it does not seem that an equitable proceeding is necessary to avoid it.74