
    POLLY WILIAMS, Administratrix and Heir of Joshua Williams, v. SIDNEY WILLIAMS, WILLIAM TURNER and WILLIAM STAYTON.
    Court of Chancery.
    October, 1800.
    
      Wilson’s Red Book, 316.
    
    
      
      Bayard, and Wilson for complainant, Hall and Peery for defendants.
    
      Wilson.
    
    Persons of weak understanding may be relieved from imposition by this Court, 3 Bac.Abr. 89, 5 Com.Dig. 518. But in this case there is the fullest proof of a defect of that capacity to give assent to a contract which is necessary to its validity. Pow. Con. 10, 11. There are many instances of relief given in this Court where parties have been found by subsequent inquisition to have been lunatic anterior to the contract. Pow.Con. 26, 3 Bac.Abr. 87.
    
      Peery and Hall.
    
    The fine or feoffment of a lunatic cannot be avoided, 3 Bac.Abr. 3. A deed after twenty years shall not be avoided upon pretence that grantor was non compos, 2 ComJDig. 421, 1 Ch.R. 40. Here is a solemn deed of bargain and sale witnessed by a judge and acknowledged in court. This is equivalent in point of notoriety to a feoffment, and by [1] Del.Laws 221 such deed is declared to be equivalent to feoffment. The consideration of the deed is surely nearly equal in value. The grantor’s wife was not insane, and yet she signed the deed and was examined before a judge.
    
      Bayard.
    
    It is not the practice to call the attention of the court to the acknowledgment of deeds, unless there is a dispute; and if the grantor could be made to sign it, he could be made to say yes to the acknowledgment. It was neither attended with the solemnity of a fine nor feoffment. Nor was it the intention of the Act to make deeds to have all the properties of a feoffment. A deed of bargain and sale will not make a discontinuance; it will work no forfeiture, 3 Dali. 489. So it will not estop the heir of a lunatic. But this deed was dated the third and acknowledged the fifth of the month. It was acknowledged by attorney, so the lunatic did not appear in court. The lunatic’s signature and that of one of the witnesses is in one ink, and the judge’s and the wife’s in another; and the examination the same date with the acknowledgment, by which it is evident the judge did not see the lunatic sign. Then all the apparent solemnity is done away.
   The Chancellor decreed a conveyance etc. in favor of complainants, giving defendants liberty to sue at law for what accounts they had against the lunatic; and complainants prohibited to plead limitation in bar, but allowed to set up the insanity, and infant to be bound, unless cause shown to the contrary in six months after he comes to age.  