Jones v. Thompson
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Bill to set aside a deed.—This is a continuation, for final hearing, after necessary amendments for that purpose, of the preceding case, brought by information in the name-of John B. Penington, Attorney General, on behalf of John Thompson, an insane person, at and by the relation of Charles-Jones et al., against William H. Thompson and Jane M.. Thompson.
Read the full summary
Bill to set aside a deed.—This is a continuation, for final hearing, after necessary amendments for that purpose, of the preceding case, brought by information in the name-of John B. Penington, Attorney General, on behalf of John Thompson, an insane person, at and by the relation of Charles-Jones et al., against William H. Thompson and Jane M.. Thompson. After the announcement of the preceding decision of the* chancellor on the motion to dismiss, a motion was made by the relators in the information, for leave to amend, hy changing the information into a bill in the name of John Thompson, by…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
In cases of alleged want of mental capacity, the test is whether the party had the ability to comprehend, in a reasonable manner, the nature of the affair in which he participated. This is the rule in the absence of fraud, for fraud when present introduces other principles. 8 C. E. Green, 511. This ability soto comprehend necessarily-implies the power to understand the character, legal conditions, and effect of the act performed.
Where weakness of mind is not of itself 'a sufficient ground for equitable interference, it will nevertheless always constitute an important element in…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Miller v. FolsomSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Fleming v. Consolidated Motor Sales Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1925
- McKnatt v. McKnattCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1915
- Charley v. NorvellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Taylor v. HowettCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1961
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.