married woman's rights are similar, or equal, to those generally defined as pertaining to parties in general.

3. Aliens. An alien is a person who owes his allegiance to a foreign country. While the respective countries are on terms of friendship and peace, all contracts that are allowed in general are binding between aliens and citizens; but in some jurisdictions aliens either cannot acquire and hold land, or are permitted to acquire and hold it only for a limited time. In case of war they are called alien enemies, and all contracts made during the continuance of the hostilities are void; the contracting parties would even be liable to punishment. If an alien enemy is sued upon a contract entered into during peace, he may defend the suit. Contracts that were made prior to the declaration of war are merely suspended during the hostilities. The reason for this standing of contracts with aliens is two-fold: first, to prevent a citizen from becoming antagonistic to his country through eagerness for trade, and secondly, to prevent the withdrawal of a country's resources that doubtless would be an aid to the enemy.

4. Insane Persons. A contract made by an insane person or one who is non compos mentis, is as a rule void. The following contracts, however, are valid and binding: (1) Contracts created by law. (2) Contracts for necessaries furnished the insane person, his wife, or his children. (3) In many states, where the sane party acts in good faith without any knowledge of the other's insanity, and the contract is so far carried out that he cannot be placed in his former position, the contract will be valid. In most states, however, contracts by a person who has been judicially declared insane and placed under guardianship, are declared to be absolutely void.

A person is non compos mentis in a given instance when, by reason of idiocy, lunacy, monomania or any other defect of the mind, he is at the time of entering into the transaction in question incapable of understanding its nature and effect. The voidable contract of an insane person may be ratified or avoided by himself when sane, by his guardian during the time his ward is insane, or by his heirs or personal representatives after his

death. The right to disaffirm is personal, and a third person cannot avoid the contract.

The law makes the very incapacity of parties their shield. In their weakness they find protection. It will not suffer those of mature age and sound mind to profit by that weakness. It binds the strong while it protects the weak. It holds the adult to the bargain which the infant may void; it holds the sane to the obligations from which the insane may be loosed. It intends that he who deals with infants or insane persons shall do so at his peril.

5. Idiots. Idiocy is a deficiency in the proper conception of things. The distinction between insanity and idiocy is, in one case, loss of intellect, and, in the other, lack of intellect, generally from birth. A contract formed with an idiot is always voidable, and in many cases absolutely void. The general rule, however, relating to necessaries of life is recognized.

6. Drunken Persons. A contract entered into by a person so drunk as to be incapable of understanding its nature and effect is voidable at his option, except that he is liable on contracts created by law, and for necessaries. The rules of ratification and disaffirmance are here substantially the same as in the case of infants and insane persons.

26. Liability. While all contractual agreements result in benefits and liabilities, the latter are variously classed as follows:

1. Individual. This is the liability of a single person in any contract or agreement; as, A agrees to pay or to sell or to work. These illustrate individual liability on the part of A.

2. Joint. In this the liability is divided between several. If A, B and C together promise or pledge, each one is liable in proportion to the number promising, but only for his part, in this case one-third.

3. Joint and Several. This is the result of an obligation assumed by several; not only are the parties liable as in the second case, but each one is also individually liable for the whole liability. If, however, one performs the whole, he may call on the

others for their share. Owing to the difficulty in effectually enforcing joint obligations, many states have enacted laws to the effect that all joint liabilities shall be joint and several.

The chief elements of capacity in parties to contracts are, being of age and having a sound mind.

A minor may ratify or disaffirm his contract upon reaching his majority; some contracts he may disaffirm during minority.

Disaffirmance renders a contract void from the beginning.

Ratification completes the liability and makes the contract binding from the beginning.

Disaffirmance or ratification must be complete; an infant cannot disaffirm in part and ratify in part.

Contracts by a minor for necessaries are binding.

In general, at the present time, the rights of a married woman to make contracts are the same as those of any other person.

Contracts made between citizens and aliens during war between .their respective countries are void.

Those contracting with infants and insane persons do so at their peril.

28. QUESTIONS

Define parties. What relations may third parties sustain to a contract? Who are competent to contract? What are the grounds of incompetency?

What is a minor, and when may he make a valid contract? When may the voidable contract of a minor become valid? What rights has a minor against an adult with whom he has contracted?

Distinguish between rights relating to personal and real property. What are necessaries?

Distinguish between the rights of a married woman under the common law and at the present time.

What powers to contract have aliens?

Drunken persons?

Insane persons? Idiots?

Define individual liability. Joint liability. Joint and several liability.

29. DECISIONS BY THE COURTS

1. In W v. D & G, 14 Mass. 457, D and G, a minor, were partners. D executed and delivered a promissory note in the firm name, D & G. Upon attaining full age, G ratified the note, but upon being sued he contended that as he did not sign the note in person it was not only

voidable, as to him, but void and not subject to ratification. The Supreme Court held to the contrary and affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

2. In McK v. M, 61 Ill. 177, M paid the expense of an infant on a trip to California, and sought to recover for the same on the ground that such expenses were necessaries. There being no proof that the trip was necessary for the infant's health, or that it served any purpose other than pleasure, it was held that the infant's estate was not liable for such expense.

3. In S v R, an infant sold a horse, and upon the question whether he could avoid the contract during his minority, it was said: "The true rule appears to be this, that where the infant can enter (as in the case of land) and hold the subject of the sale till his legal age, he shall be incapable of avoiding till that time; but where the possession is changed and there is no legal means to regain and hold in the meantime, the infant, or his guardian for him, has the right to exercise the power of recision immediately."

4. In A v. B, 6 Metc., Mass. 415, B, while insane, sold a tract of land to A, and after restoration to sanity received payments upon the same. B contended that the deed made while he was insane was void, and that it could not be ratified. The Court held it voidable only and subject to ratification.

5. In M Co. v. H, 79 N. Y. 541, H had executed a mortgage and had received the benefit under it. It was alleged that she was insane. Under the maxim that "he who seeks equity must do equity," it was set forth that the defendant could not retain the benefit of the contract and at the same time deprive the plaintiff of its remedies, and it was said that an executed contract, when the parties had been dealing fairly and in ignorance of the lunacy, should not afterwards be set aside. A contrary doctrine would render all ordinary dealings between man and man unsafe.

6. In B v. B, 2 Ark. 167, the parties had exchanged land, and the defendant executed his note for $1,000 difference. Later he refused to receive a deed from the plaintiff or to pay the note, and offered to prove that at the time of the transaction he was drunk. The Supreme Court held that if he was incapable of exercising his understanding so as to be able to contract, such evidence was admissible.

CHAPTER VI.

THE SECOND ELEMENT-THE SUBJECT MATTER

30. INTRODUCTION

1. Definition

31. FORBIDDEN CONTRACTS

1. Contracts Contrary to Statutory Prohibition
2. Contracts Contrary to Common Law Prohibition
3. Contracts Against Public Policy

30. Introduction. Great latitude is permitted in making contracts, and only those that are judged to be against the best interests of the community are forbidden. The broad principle of the law applies, which is to permit one to make all contracts that are possible, denying only those that are considered objectionable on grounds of public policy and good morals.

1. Definition. The subject matter of a contract may generally be defined as that which is to be done or that which is to be left undone.