Richardson v. Strong
| Decision Date | 31 December 1851 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | THOMAS RICHARDSON v. JOEL STRONG. |
Contracts with lunatics are not all absolutely void; but such as are fairly made with them for necessaries, or things suitable to their condition and habits of life, will be sustained.
Where a person is insane, so as to attempt injury to himself, and the destruction of his property, the services of a nurse and guard fall within the class of necessaries, as defined by law.
The case of Tally v Tally, 2 D. & B's Eq. 385, cited and approved.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Granville County, at the Fall Term, 1851, his Honor Judge ELLIS presiding.
The action is Assumpsit for work and labor, and was tried on the general issue. The case was, that the defendant became insane, and so much so, as to attempt injury to himself and the destruction of his property. He had negro servants, but his physician and relations thought it necessary that there should be some white person with him, as a nurse and a guard against his violence; and a son-in-law of the defendant requested the plaintiff to attend on him. He did so, and upon the defendant's recovery, he refused to pay him anything, and this action was brought. The defendant objected, that, as he was a lunatic at the time, no promise could be implied; and, also, that the plaintiff's services were unnecessary. But the Court instructed the Jury, that, if they believed the evidence as to the condition of the defendant, and the state of his family, the services of the plaintiff were necessary to the defendant; and, if so, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
Saunders, for the plaintiff .
J. H. Bryan and Busbee, for the defendant .
The contracts of a lunatic are not all absolutely void; but it is held, that contracts, fairly made with them for necessaries, or things suitable to their condition or habits of life, are to be sustained. The leading case on the subject, in England, is that of Baxter v Earl of Portsmouth; and in Tally v Tally, 2 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 385, the same opinion was expressed by this Court. There is, therefore, no absurdity in the case of lunatics, more than in that of infants, in implying a request to one rendering necessary services, or supplying necessary articles, and implying, also, a promise to pay for them. Indeed, with whatever propriety the ancient maxim, that no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garay v. Overholtzer
...promise to pay, or quasi-contract. See Webster Street Partnership v. Sheridan, 220 Neb. 9, 368 N.W.2d 439 (Neb.1985); Richardson v. Strong, 35 N.C. 106 (1851); North Carolina Baptist Hosp. v. Franklin, 103 N.C.App. 446, 405 S.E.2d 814, cert. denied, 330 N.C. 197, 412 S.E.2d 58 (1991); Unive......
-
Cole v. Wagner
... ... appear that the articles were suitable to the infant's ... degree and estate." Richardson v. Strong, 35 ... N.C. 106, 55 Am. Dec. 430; Hyman v. Cain, 48 N.C ... 111; Jordan v. Coffield, 70 N.C. 110; Turner v ... Gaither, 83 N.C. 357, ... ...
-
Dunn, In re
...the necessaries furnished. 28 Am.Jur., Insane and Other Incompetent Persons, Sec. 62. Ruffin, C. J., speaking for the Court in Richardson v. Strong, 35 N.C. 106, says: 'There is, therefore, no absurdity in the case of lunatics more than in that of infants in implying a request to one render......
-
North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Inc. v. Franklin, by Edwards
...but not upon their credit, the law will imply a promise by the recipient to pay their reasonable value under quantum meruit. Richardson v. Strong, 35 N.C. 106 (1851). But a child living with its parents cannot be held liable even for necessaries "unless it be proved that the parent was unab......