Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Of-Real-Property/Persons-Of-Unsound-Mind.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:40:23+00:00

Document:
239. Conveyances by insane persons who are tinder guardianship are void, but, if not under guardianship, their conveyances are voidable only.
240. The same rules govern conveyances by intoxicated persons and habitual drunkards.
11 Jones v. Butler, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 641; Goodnow v. Lumber Co., 31 Minn. 468, 18 N. W. 283. So by statute in some states. 1 Stim. Am. St Law, § 6602; Wright v. Germain, 21 Iowa, 585; Green v. Wilding, 59 Iowa, 679, 13 N. W. 761. Contra, Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 58; Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. 617; Prout v. Wiley, 28 Mich. 164; Huth v. Dock Co., 56 Mo. 202.
12 Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 119; Mccormic v. Leggett, 8 Jones (N. C.) 425.
13 Brandon v. Brown, 106 111. 519. Where the consideration received has been wasted by the infant, no offer to restore it Is necessary. Chandler v. Simmonds, 97 Mass. 508; Green v. Green, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 492. But contra, Stout v. Merrill, 35 Iowa, 47; Kerr v. Bell, 44 Mo. 120.
14 Battell v. Torrey, 65 N. Y. 294; Wood v. Truax, 39 Mich. 628. Cf. Mer-ritt v. Simpson, 41 111. 391.
15 Odell v. Buck, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 142; Titcomb v. Vantyle, 84 111. 371; Corbit v. Smith, 7 Iowa, 60.
16 Aiman v. Stout, 42 Pa. St. 114; Taylor v. Cox, 153 111. 220, 38 N. E. 656; Miller v. Craig, 36 111. 109; Odell v. Buck, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 142; In re Pike's Will, 83 Hun, 327, 31 N. Y. Supp. 689.
17 Allore v. Jewell, 94 U. S. 506; Harding v. Handy, 11 Wheat. 103.
18 Corbit v. Smith, 7 Iowa, 00; Mohr v. T ulip, 40 Wis. 66; Rogers v. Walker, 6 Pa. St. 371. A. deed of his homestead is void though his wife joins. New England Loan & Trust Co. v. Spitler, 54 Kan. 560, 38 Pac. 799.
19 Bunham v. Kidwell, 113 111. 425; Allis v. Billings, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 415; Breckenridge v. Ormsby, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 236.
20 Evans v. Horan, 52 Md. 602; Van Deusen v. Sweet, 51 N. Y. 378; Farley v. Parker, 6 Or. 105; German Sav. & Loan Soc. v. De Lashmutt, 67 Fed. 399. See, as to the theory of lucid intervals, Wthart_ & S. Med. Jur. §§ 61, 62; 2 Hamilton, Leg. Med. 113, 222.
21 Trich's Ex'r v. Trich, 165 Pa. St. 586, 30 Atl. 1053; Ekin v. Mccracken, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 534; Turner v. Rusk, 53 Md. 65; Farmer v. Farmer, 129 Mo. 530, 31 S. W. 926; Blough v. Parry (Ind. Sup.) 40 N. E. 70; Mcclary v. Stull, 44 Neb. 175, 62 N. W. 501.
22 Ekin v. Mccracken, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 534.
23 Arnold v. Iron Works, 1 Gray (Mass.) 434; Eaton v. Eaton, 37 N. J. Law, 108.
§§ 241-242) insane persons are set aside. But it seems that there should be a restoration when the grantee was ignorant of his grantor's incapacity, or when there was no fraud present.25 As in the case of infants, the lands of insane persons may be conveyed by order of court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 6602
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.