was aſked, how he came to remember the releaſe, if out of his ſenſes when he gave it[1]. Under Henry VI this way of reaſoning (that a man ſhall not be allowed to diſable himſelf, by pleading his own incapacity, becauſe he cannot know what he did under ſuch a ſituation) was ſeriouſly adopted by the judges in argument[2]; upon a queſtion, whether the heir was barred of his right of entry by the feoffment of his inſane anceſtor. And from theſe looſe authorities, which Fitzherbert does not ſcruple to reject as being contrary to reaſon[3], the maxim that a man ſhall not ſtultify himſelf hath been handed down as ſettled law[4]: though later opinions, feeling the inconvenience of the rule, have in many points endeavoured to reſtrain it[5]. And, clearly, the next heir, or other perſon intereſted, may, after the death of the idiot or non compos, take advantage of his incapacity and avoid the grant[6]. And ſo too, if he purchaſes under this diſability, and does not afterwards upon recovering his ſenſes agree to the purchaſe, his heir may either waive or accept the eſtate at his option[7]. In like manner, an infant may waive ſuch purchaſe or conveyance, when he comes to full age; or, if he does not then actually agree to it, his heirs may waive it after him[8]. Perſons alſo, who purchaſe or convey under dureſs, may affirm or avoid ſuch tranſaction, whenever the dureſs is ceaſed[9]. For all theſe are under the protection of the law; which will not ſuffer them to be impoſed upon, through the imbecillity of their preſent condition; ſo that their acts are only binding, in caſe they be afterwards, agreed to, when ſuch imbecillity ceaſes.
The caſe of a feme-covert is ſomewhat different. She may purchaſe an eſtate without the conſent of her huſband, and the conveyance is good during the coverture, till he avoids it by ſome act declaring his diſſent[10]. And, though he does nothing to avoid
