It Is generally considered that contracts for necesswrie8 for an insane person are binding, if suited to their condition in life ; 5 B. & C. 170; Richardson v. Strong, 35 N. C. 106, 55 Am. Dec. 430; Pearl v. M'Dowell, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 658, 20 Am. Dec. 199; Maddox v. Simmons, 31 Ga. 512 ; Skidmore v. Romaine, 2 Bradt Sur. (N. Y.) 122; Crowther v. Rowlandson, 27 Cal. 376; Fitz gerald v. Reed, 9 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 94; and this rule has been extended to other things which were reasonable and proper ; Kendall v. May, 10 Allen (Mass.) 59; but if the other party has knowledge of the in sanity the nature of the liability is rather quasi-contractual ; 44 Ch. D. 94; Sawyer v. Lufkin, 56 Me. 308 ; Keener, Quasi-Cont. 20. This liability is not removed by the appoint ment of a committee, where necessaries are furnished in good faith and the committee has failed to provide them; Barnes v. Hath away, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 452; Stannard v. Burns' Adm'r, 63 Vt. 244, 22 Atl. 460.
Statutes making the estates of insane per sons liable for their maintenance in state institutions are valid ; Kaiser v. State, 80 Kan. 364, 102 Pac. 454, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 295.
The fact that a husband causes his wife to be placed in an insane asylum is not evi dence of his refusal to support her, nor of consent to her absence outside the home,' rendering him liable for her support; Rich ardson v. Stuesser, 125 Wis. 66, 103 N. W. 261, 69 L. R. A. 829, 4 Ann. Cas. 784.
Deeds executed by persons of unsound mind are absolutely void ; Wilkinson v. Wil kinson, 129 Ala. 279, 30 South. 578; Riggs v. Tract Society, 95 N. Y. 503 ; Ballew v. Clark, 24 N. C. 23 ; Bensell v. Chancellor, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 371, 34 Am. Dec. 561; 3 Witth. & Beck. Med. Jur. 386. In other cases it has been held that such a deed is voidable only ; Arnold v. Iron Works, 1 Gray (Mass.) 434; Somers v. Pumphrey, 24 Ind. 231; Cates v. Woodson, 2 Dana (Ky.) 452. Other cases again hold that want of perfect soundness of mind does not affect the conveyance if there is still capacity for fully comprehend ing the import of the act ; Miller v. Craig, 36 Ill. 109 ; Dennett v. Dennett, 44 N. H. 531, 84 Am. Dec. 97; Odell v. Buck, 21 Wend. (N.
Y.) 142; Rippy v. Gant, 39 N. C. 443. See Smith v. Elliott's Adm'r, 1 Patt. & H. (Va.) 307; 1 Pingr. Mortg. § 349.
An action cannot be dismissed because it is brought by an insane person in his own name, unless the statute so provides ; Wies mann v. Donald, 125 Wis. 600, 104 N. W. 916, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 961.
As to testamentary capacity as affected by insanity, see WILL; DEMENTIA; UNDUE INFLUENCE.
In most states the statutes of limitation do not run against a person insane, nor does adverse possession ripen into title while the person out of possession is insane ; Clarity v. Sheridan, 91 Ia. 304g59 N. W. 52; but a plaintiff's claim is not affected by the in sanity of the defendant's ancestor after the statute had begun to run; Asbury v. Fair, 111 N. C. 251, 16 S. E. 467. The time of san ity required in order to allow the statute to begin to run is such as will enable the party to examine his affairs and institute an ac tion, and is for -the jury ; Clark's Executor v. Trail's Adm'rs, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 35.
Insanity is not a defence in an action of tort; but damages are compensatory and not punitive ; McIntyre v. Sholty, 121 111. 660, 13 N. E. 239, 2 Am. St. Rep. 140 ; Las sone v. R. R., 66 N. H. 345, 24 Atl. 902, 17 L. R. A. 525 ; Williams v. Hays, 143 N. Y. 442, 38 N. E. 449, 26 L. R. A. 153, 42 Am. St.. Rep. 743 ; Meyer v. Ry. Co., 54 Fed. 116, 4 , C. C. A. 221.
A master of a vessel cannot excuse himself for negligently causing its destruction by showing that the orders which were given by him while temporarily insane caused such destruction ; Williams v. Hays, 143 N. Y. 442, 38 N. E. 449, 26 L. R. A. 153, 42 Am. St. Rep. 743: but it is a complete defence in an action for words spoken slanderously about the plaintiff that they were uttered under an insane delusion of their truth ; Irvine v. Gib son, 117 Ky. 306, 77 S. W. 1106, 111 Ain. St. Rep. 251, 4 Ann. Cas. 569 ; and where a vis itor falls through a hole in the floor of a building owned by a lunatic and left un guarded by him, there is no cause of action; Ward v. Rogers, 51 Misc. 299, 100 N. Y. Supp. 1058.
As to lucid intervals and the competency of insane persons as witnesses, see LUCID