Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Handbook-Law-Of-Contracts/Effect-Of-Contracts.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:36:47+00:00

Document:
Thus far we have spoken of the contracts of a person non compos mentis as being voidable only, and as a rule they are so; but, as in the case of infants, some of his contracts as valid, and some of them are held to be absolutely void. In some jurisdictions the contract is held binding where the other party acted in good faith, and without knowledge of the insanity. Of this we will presently speak at some length.
Dennett v. Dennett, 44 N. H. 531, 84 Am. Dec. 97; Searle v. Galbraith, 73 111. 269; Alston v. Boyd, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 504; Samuel v. Marshall, 3 Leigh (Va.) 567; Dominick v. Randolph, 124 Ala. 557, 27 South. 481. Monomania on the subject of religion or spiritualism. Boyce's Adm'r v. Smith, 9 Grat. (Va.) 704, 60 Am. Dec. 313; Lewis v. Arbuckle, 85 Iowa, 335, 52 N. W. 237, 16 L. R. A. 677; West v. Russell, 48 Mich. 74, 11 N. W. 812; Burgess v. Pollock, 53 Iowa, 273, 5 N. W. 179, 36 Am. Rep. 218. See "Insane Persons," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. § 125.
18 Reando v. Misplay, 90 Mo. 251, 2 S. W. 405, 59 Am. Rep. 13; post. p. 644. See "Insane Persons," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 75; Cent. Dig. §§ 125-182.
20La Rue v. Gilkyson, 4 Pa. 375, 45 Am. Dee. 700; Richardson v. Strong, 35 N. C. 106, 55 Am. Dec. 430; McCormick v. Littler, 85 I11. 62,.28 Am. Rep. 610; Baxter v. Portsmouth, 5 Barn. & C. 170; Van Horn v. Hann, 39 N. J. Law, 207; Read v. Legard, 6 Exch. 636; Surles v. Pipkin, 69 N. C. 513; Shaw v. Thompson, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 198, 26 Am. Dec. 655; Sawyer v. Lufkin, 56 Me. 308; Reando v. Misplay, 90 Mo. 251, 2 S. W. 405, 59 Am. Rep. 13; Pearl v. McDowell, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 658, 20 Am. Dec. 199; Kendall v May, 10 Allen (Mass.) 59; Rhodes v. Rhodes, 44 Ch. Div. 94; Sceva v. True, 53 N. H. 627. Liability for necessaries furnished his wife. Read v. Legard, supra. And see Smith's Committee v. Forsythe, 90 S. W. 1075, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 1034, holding imbecile liable for necessaries furnished himself, wife, and children, although the other party had knowledge of his incapacity to contract. He has even been held liable for luxuries furnished in good faith. Kendall v. May, supra. See "Insane Persons," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 7J; Cent. Dig. §§ S9, 128, 129.
21 Williams v. Wentworth, 5 Beav. 325. See "Insane Persons," Dec. Dig (Key-No.) § 75; Cent. Dig. §§ 89, 128, 129.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12
 § 125
 v. 
 § 75
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 § 75