Page:An introduction to Roman-Dutch law.djvu/144

 Rh 104 THE LAW OF PERSONS Furiosus nullum negotium gerere potest. Qualifica- tions of the rule. Inter- dicted prodigals. the particular transaction which is brought in issue ? ' ^ If the answer is affirmative, then the transaction is wholly- void ^ for ' furiosus nullum negotium gerere potest, quia non inteUigit quid agit'.* The same principle applies to any other form of mental alienation.* It is immaterial that the other party to the transaction was unaware of the condition of the person with whom he was dealing. The rule, however, admits two qualifications : (1) The Roman-Dutch Law, while denying the capacity of an insane person to bind himself by contract, recognizes the equity of allowing a person who has in good faith expended money on behalf of a lunatic to have his expenses recouped.* (2) ' Where acts have been done on behalf of an insane person by virtue of a power of attorney (or other mandate) given by him before he was bereft of his reason, there are authorities, such as Digest 46. 3. 32, and Pothier on Obligations, sec. 81, from which it might be fairly inferred that want of knowledge regarding the principal's change of condition would protect persons dealing with the agent. The power is revoked by reason of the insanity ; but if the power held out the agent as a person with whom third parties might contract as such imtil they receive notice of the revocation of the authority, their knowledge of the insanity would have an important bearing on their right to recover upon a contract thus made. That would, however, be a very different matter from saying that an agent appointed after the insanity of the principal could, under the Roman-Dutch Law, validly bind such principal.' ® The condition of the prodigal after interdiction and public notification thereof may correctly be described as Gr. 3. 1. 19. Inst. 3. 19. 8 ; Van Leeuwen, 2. 7. 8. ^ Molyneux v. Natal Land and Colonization Co. [1905] A. C. 555 ; in appeal from Natal (24 N. L. R. 259), per Sir Henry de Villiers, at p. 569. ^ Ibid, at p. 563. The P. C. judgment in Appeal is reproduced in 26 N. L. R. 423.
 * Prinsloo's Curators bonis v. Crafford & Prinsloo [1905] T. S. 669.
 * Such as drunkenness. Gr. 3. 14. 5.