Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/591

 KILaOBB V. OBOSS. 688 �courts can grant no relief. If the party was capable of enter- ing into a contract, and there was no fraud, it is binding, though it may be obvions that he aoted improvidently, and paid for property purchased greatly more, or received from' property sold greatly less, than it was worth. �It is impossible to define with exactness the degree of un- soundness of mind that renders a party incapable of entering into a binding contract. Weakness of understanding, or that deficiency of intellect which errs in judgment and easily makes mistakes, is not enough of itself to avoid a contract. But the aots and contracts of persons who are of weak under- standing, and who are thereby liable to imposition, will be held void in courts of equity, if the nature of the act or con- tract justifies the conclusion that the party has not exercised a deliberate judgment, but has been imposed upon, circum- vented, or overcome by cunning artifice or undue influence. 1 Story Eq. Jur. § 338. �In Kelly's Heirs v. McOuire, 16 Ark. 655, 603, the court say: "If a person, although not positively non compas or in- sane, is yet of such great weakness of mind as to be unable to guard himself against imposition or resist importunity or undue influence, a contract made by him under such circum- stances will be set aside;" and in Belier v. Jones, 22 Ark. 92, 99, the court said: "No evidence was introduced by Jones so effective, none could be introduced more convincing, to show mental derangement or want of natural sense as is the agree- ment itself charged by him and admitted by Belier to bave been made," �It must be conceded that the contract from which the plain- tiff seeks to be relieved cannot be said to be so grossly im- provident as in itself to justify the conclusion of insanity on bis part, or fraud on the part of the defendants; neverthe- less, its improvidenee and foUy are an important circumstanee, tending to strengthen the conclusion, supported by the evi- dence, that his mental capacity was not adequate to the mak- ing of a valid contract, for it shows that in the very matter under consideration he did not act like a sensible or sane man, but quite the contrary. ��� �