Parker v. Davis

An inquisition oflunaey is not conclusive against a person dealing with asupposed lunatic; but he may show that at the time of the contract, such supposed lunatic had sufficient capacity to make it. (Oases of Arrington v. Short, 3 Hawks 71; Christmas v. Mitchell, 3 Ire. Eq. 533, and Hippy v. Gant, 4 Ire. 443, cited and approved. Case of Fessenden v. Jones, 7 Jones 14, cited and distinguished from this.)

Action of assumpsit for goods sold, and delivered, tried before Saunders, J., at tbe Spring Term, 1861, of Stanly Superior Court. The defendant pleaded, specially, that he had a guardian, regularly appointed under a commission of lunacy. There was no contestation as to the sale and delivery of the goods, nor the price; and it appeared that they were of a proper kind, and useful for the subsistence of defendant and his family. The defendant’s counsel produced the record of the inquisition of lunacy finding the defendant a lunatic and appointing to him a guardian, which was regular in form and not questioned. The plaintiff then proposed to show, by witnesses, that at the time of the dealings, in question, the defendant was of sound mind. The evidence was objected to by defendant, but admitted by the Court: For which, defendant’s counsel excepted. It was then stated by the witnesses, that the defendant had, for years, been in the habit of drinking spirits to great excess ; that when sober, he was a man of ordinary intelligence — capable of understanding what he was about and of making a contract; that for the last ten years, he generally came to town sober and went away drunk ; that he had a large family of children, and that the articles in question had been purchased either by his wife, or some one of his children, or by himself, when sober, and that they were family articles; that the account had been drawn off and given to the defendant, who, after taking it away, returned and said, £ all was right.’ The defendant’s counsel objected, that the suit could not be maintained against the defendant, as he had a regular guardian, and cited the case Fessenden v. Jones, 7 Jones 14. His Honor charged the jury, that if they were satisfied the articles had been purchased by the defendant, or by his family, with his knowledge and approbation, when he was sober, and had sufficient capacity to understand the nature of the transaction ; that the account had been examined by him and admitted to be correct, he then having sufficient capacity to understand, they should find in favor of the plaintiff, but if the evidence failed to satisfy them as to the capacity of the defendant, their verdict should be for the defendant. Defendant’s counsel excepted to the former part of the charge. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Appeal by the defendant.