COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE.—1 BLAND. 353

sioners of this Court in the City of Baltimore, to be read in evi-
dence at the hearing of this matter on giving two days' notice as
usual.

Nothing having been done under this order, the case was, on the
28th November, 1827, ordered to stand for hearing at the then
next December Term, unless cause was shewn to the contrary; and
no cause having been shewn, the case was brought before the
Court for a final decision.

BLAND, C., 20th February, 1828.—This case standing ready for
hearing and having been submitted, without argument or notes,
the proceedings were read and considered.

The bill charges, that the deed of the 15th of June, 1824, was
obtained by combination and fraud; which of itself, if true, would
afford a sufficient ground for the relief prayed. But this allega-
tion is especially bottomed upon the statement, that at the time
the deed was executed, the plaintiff' had been deprived of her in-
tellectual faculties; and that she was then in truth entirely now
compos mentis; either from great age, or by reason of the disorder
under which she was then suffering. She makes her own inca-
pacity the chief basis of her prayer for relief. But, according to
a maxim of the English law, no man can be allowed to stultify
himself for the purpose of avoiding his own deed. Beverley's Case,
4 Co. 123. If we are bound by this maxim; and it be an estab-
lished principle of our law, it is evident, that everything in this
case, which can be considered as at variance with it, must be re-
jected; and we must be confined to that alone which relates to
the allegations of fraud, in total exclusion of everything respect-
ing the plaintiff's personal disability occasioned by her alleged
insanity.

The application of this maxim to this case, therefore, meets us
here, as a preliminary inquiry. Can the unfortunate or afflicted
party himself make his own insanity a foundation of relief or
defence? Is it a principle or maxim of the law of Maryland,
"that no man of full age shall be, in any plea to be pleaded by
him, received by the law to stultify himself, and disable his own
person?" Beverley's Case,4 Co. 123. I have not been able to find
any adjudged case, or other respectable authority, shewing in what
manner this maxim has been received; or whether it has ever been
adopted or rejected * in this State. Therefore, whether it
ought to be now received, or rejected, must depend upon 377
the nature of the reasons and the policy by which it is sustained.

In England, it is said, that the progress of this notion is some-
what curious; and although it has been handed down as settled
law, yet, that later opinions, feeling the inconvenienceof the rule,
have in many points endeavored to restrain it. 2 Blac. Com. 291;
23 1 B.