COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE. 301

contract; yet, that with other circumstances, will afford a sufficient
foundation for relief, (r)

What is that degree of intellectual imbecility which may be
taken into the estimate as one of the component parts of a ground
for relief, in those cases where the boundary between mere weak-
ness and a condition of non compos mentis is so narrow that it may
be difficult to draw the line,(s) I shall not undertake to deter-
mine, as I .have not been able to find it any where particularly
described.(t) It must not, however, be confounded with mere
ignorance. If the grantor be an ignorant and illiterate man, one
who cannot read; it is necessary, that the deed should be fully and
correctly read to him; for, if it is not read at all, or improperly
read to him, or if it be read or explained to him improperly even
by a stranger,(&) he will not be bound by it; not on the ground of
weakness of mind, or of his incapacity clearly to judge of what he
was about; but because his sound mind cannot be presumed to
have assented to that of which it was wholly ignorant or misin-
formed, (v)

It has been laid down in general terms, that it is fraudulent to
obtain a deed by the exercise of undue influence over a man whose
mind had ceased to be a safe guide of his actions ;(x) or from a man
who was of small understanding and not able to govern the lands
which had descended to him.(y) A woman who could read and
write, and had taught a child to read, was held to be a person of
weak understanding ;(z) so repeating scraps of Latin and reading
classic authors was deemed no proof of sanity; because what a
person learns in his youth leaves a lasting impression, and the
traces of it are never entirely worn out. Such a person, though
not a lunatic, was determined to be a weak man.(a) In another
case it is said, that the man was foolish to imbecility, though not
to downright idiocy.(6) A man who had entirely recovered from
a long continuance of lunacy is said to have been of a diseased
intellect from his birth.(c) A young man is said to have been of
mean parts and easy to be imposed upon.(d) A person is spoken

(r) Osmond v. Fitzroy, 3 P. Will. 130; Willis v. Jernegan, 2 Atk. 251; Ches-
terfield v. Janssen, 2 Ves. 156; Lewis v. Pead, 1 Ves. jun. 19; 1 Fonb. 60,
(*) Bennet v. Vade, 2 Atk. 325.—(O Ball v. Mannin, Shelf. Lun. 25S.—(u) The-
roughgood's Case, 2 Co. 9.—(v) Henry PIgot's Case, 11 Co. 27; Hatch v. Hatch,
i Ves. 295.—(a) Harding v. Handy, 11 Wheat. 125; Chesterfield v. Janssea, 2 Vet.
156.—(y) Twyne's Case, 3 Co. 83.—(z) White v. Small, 2 Chan. Ca. 103.—(a) Sen-
net v. Vade, 2 Atk. 325.—(6) Bunch v. Hurst, 3 Desau. 292.—(c) Wright». Proud,
13 Ves. 138;—(d) Portengton v. Eglington, 2 Vera. 189.