Pearl v. McDowell
| Decision Date | 24 April 1830 |
| Citation | 26 Ky. 658 |
| Parties | Pearl v. M'Dowell and others. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Lunatic Committee. Husband and Wife. Pleas and Pleading. Bar. Demurrer. Non Compos Mentis.
ERROR TO THE LINCOLN CIRCUIT; JOHN L. BRIDGES, JUDGE.
Anderson and Kincaid, for plaintiff.
Marshall for defendants.
This was an action of assumpsit, in which the defendants in error as physicians and su??geons, practising in partnership, under the name and style of M'Dowell, Moore and Caldwell claimed from the plaintiff in error, compensation for surgical operations performed on his wife, and for medicines, care and attention furnished to her, at his instance and request; for which, upon trial, had upon the plea of non-assumpsit, they recovered $125 and costs, to reverse which, the defendants in error prosecute this writ of error.
Pearl, by his committee, filed another plea to the declaration, averring, that at the time of the supposed assumpsit, he was a lunatic, so found before that time, by a regular inquisition of record, in the Lincoln circuit court; and that he still continued to be a lunatic.
To this M'Dowell, & c. replied, that the services set forth in the declaration, were rendered at the request of the patient, (Pearl's wife), and with the knowledge and assent of Henry Owsley, who managed the business of said Pearl.
A demurrer to this replication, was overruled by the circuit court. The only error assigned, questions the correctness of that opinion.
Upon the demurrer, the sufficiency of the plea as a bar to the action, was properly the subject of decision.
The law as to the propriety of permitting a person to avoid a contract, by the plea of " non compos mentis, " was for many years, according to the English decisions, not fully settled. Blackstone, in speaking of this subject, II. vol. of his commentaries, page 291, says, " in the time of Edward I. non compos, was a sufficient plea, to avoid a man's own bond." At a later period, a different course of decision seems to have prevailed, to which the same author refers, and adds,
After office found contracts of idiots or lunatics void.
In the case of Yates v. Boen, II. vol. of Stra, 1104, in debt upon articles, the defendant plead " non est factum, " and was permitted to give lunacy in evidence, and the plaintiff suffered a non-suit. The same doctrine is laid down in Chitty, as applicable to the action of assumpsit. Lunacy may be given in evidence under the general issue, or it may be pleaded. See I. vol. 470 and 474.
In III. vol. Bac. abr. 539, after having laid down the ancient doctrine, that no man is allowed to stultify himself, he says, " yet it seems that even at law, the contracts of idiots and lunatics, after office found, and the party legally committed, are void, and i?? must be at the peril of him, who deals with such a one."
A lunatic has no capacity to contract, so long as his lunacy continues. The plea, therefore, if true, was a bar to the action, unless the matter relied upon in the replication, made that valid, which would otherwise have been invalid. We are clearly of opinion, that it can not have such an effect.
Committee of lunatic can not bind him by contract.
The averment, that the services were rendered with the assent of Owsley, who managed the business of Pearl, could not be regarded.
His person and property had been committed to a committee in the mode prescribed by the statute. Whether Owsley was his committee is not shewn, nor is it important to enquire; as even his committee could have no right to bind him by contract. Had he thought proper to have procured the services of a surgeon for the cure of the lunatic's wife, the chancellor in the settlement of his accounts, might, perhaps have regarded it, and made an allowance for...
To continue reading
Request your trial