Case Name: HEMAN STANNARD v. MICHAEL BURNS' ADMR.
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1891-01
Citations: 63 Vt. 244
Docket Number: 
Parties: HEMAN STANNARD v. MICHAEL BURNS’ ADMR.
Judges: Thompson, J., dissents.
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 244–258

Head Matter:
HEMAN STANNARD v. MICHAEL BURNS’ ADMR.
Insane person. Contract for necessaries.
An adjudication of insanity and the appointment of a guardian by the Probate Court is not conclusive against the ability of the ward to make a valid contract for necessaries.
Tliis was an appeal from an order of the Probate Court for the district of Pair Haven, accepting the report of commissioners, by which the claim of the plaintiff against the estate of Michael Burns was disallowed. Trial by court at the September term, 1890, Taft, J., presiding.
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $102.64. The defendant excepts.
The plaintiff claimed to recover upon an account consisting of fourteen items, of which the following is a copy :
1887.
1. Dec. 27, Michael Burns, to one day at Rutland.. . .$ 2 00
2. Car fare and hotel.................... 75
1888.
3. Feb. 7, Do................................. 2 75
4. June 5, Do..............................'.... 2 75
5. 8, Cash.............................. 40 00
6. Aug. 15, “ ................................ 10 00
7. Oct. 1, “ 30 00
8 One day.............................. 2 00
9 Hotel, car fare.............. 1 40
1889.
10. Mar. 19, Cash.............................. 5 00
11. Apr. 8, “ .......................-........10 00
12. Jim. 18, “ 25 00
13 One day, car fare...................... 3 15
14. July 15, Cash after death...................... 5 00
$139 80
Item 14 was disallowed as having accrued after the death of the intestate, Burns. "With reference to the other items the court found:
“ The testate Michael Burns was adjudged an insane person and a guardian appointed over him February 11, 1888, by the Probate Court for the district of Fair Haven.
“ At the time items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were contracted, the claimant had no knowledge that Burns had been adjudged insane, and a guardian appointed, but he had such knowledge when items Nos. 6 to 13 inclusive accrued. During the time covered by the account, Burns was a feeble, insane, old man, living in his own house, cared for by Bridget Manghan. Both Burns and Bridget were not on friendly terms with the guardian, and when the latter applied to Bridget to learn if anything was needed for Burns, he was told that Burns was not in want and did not at the time know of the loans by the claimant to Burns until the latter’s death. Had Bridget made known to the guardian the wants or needs of Burns, they would have been supplied by the guardian.
“ The services were rendered and cash paid as charged in the account.
The first items, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of $48.25 with interest from 8th June, 1888, to date, amount to $55.06. Items -6 to 13 inclusive, $86.55, with interest from the elate of the last item, 18 June, 1889, to date, amount to $93.41.
“ Michael Burns died 14 July, 1889. The money specified iu items 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12, was used by Bridget Manghan in the support of, and necessaries for, the testate.
After the first nine items had accrued, the claimant presented his account to the guardian and he promised to pay the items of the date prior to the appointment of the guardian, and told the claimant he would not pay the items charged during the guardianship. The items then accrued ($91.65), with interest from that date, Oct. 13, 1888, to date, amount to the sum of $102.64.”
IF. H. Preston and J. O. Baker, for the defendant.
The contracts of persons adjudged to be insane are absolutely void, and all persons are presumed to know of the adjudication.
E. L. s. 2443 ; 1 Add. Oon. 231, note 1, prin. 3; Grouse v. HaVmarn, 39 Ind. 30; Jaolcson v. G-umoer, 2 Cow. 522.
Geo. K Lawrence and F. S. Platt, for the plaintiff.
A contract with, an insane person made in good faith for necessaries is enforceable.
Baxter v. Earl of Portsmouth, 5 B. & C. 170; 1 Par. Con. 387 ; McGrillis v. Barrtlett, 8 N. H. 569 ; Barnes v. Hathaway, 66 Barb. 452; Sharper v. Wing, 2 Hun. 671; Lincoln v. Buck-master, 32 Yt. 660.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
START, J.
It appears from the statement of facts filed in the County Court, that Michael Burns was adjudged an insane person, and a guardian appointed over him in February, 1888 ; that Burns lived in his own home and was cared for by Bridget Manghan; that, while Burns was under guardianship, the plaintiff rendered services for him and from time to time loaned him money, and the same was used by Bridget Manghan in the purchase of necessaries for his support.
The statement of facts, and the fair inferences to be drawn from them, would warrant the court in finding that the "insanity 55 which the Probate Court found as a ground for appointing a guardian was not of that character which disqualified the ward from entering into a valid contract for necessaries.
It does not necessarily follow,' when there has been an adjudication by the Probate Court that a person is insane, that the insanity is of that character which disqualifies him from making a valid contract for necessaries. Motley v. Head, 43 Vt. 633; Blaisdell v. Holmes, 48 Vt. 492. In the last named case the plaintiff was permitted to recover of the defendant for services rendered for him under a contract made with him, after he had been adjudged an insane person by the Probate Court, and while he was under guardianship.
In Motley v. Head, supra, the plaintiff sought to recover for money paid out for the defendant, after he was adjudged an insane person,' and while he was under guardianship. The adjudication of insanity was relied upon in defence, and the court held that the 'adjudication, to be available, should have been accompanied with evidence showing that the insanity was of that character which disqualified the defendant from making a valid contract.
Judgment affirmed, and cause certified to the Probate Court.
Thompson, J., dissents.