406 COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE.

only give relief by decreeing a conveyance, which the lunatic
could not be ordered to make, because of his incapacity to
contract, (h)

But here, although the legal estate is vested in the plaintiff her-
self; yet if the matter were left at law no relief could there be
obtained against the plaintiff during her life; nor could a specific
performance be obtained at any time against any one at law:
therefore, from the very nature of the case, the relief necessary to
meet it, can only be obtained, if at all, in a court of equity. It is
laid down, that if a man by age, or disease is reduced to a state
of debility of mind, which though short of lunacy, renders him
unequal to the management of his affairs, the court will, in respect
of his infirmities, appoint a guardian to answer for him, or to do
other acts, as his interests, or the rights of others may require.(i)
And it is said, that where one who could not be proved a lunatic
was relieved from a deed obtained of him by fraud and imposition
upon his weakness, it was further ordered, that he should not exe-
cute any future deed, but with the consent of the court, (j)

It was upon these authorities, that I passed the order of the
17th of April last. I deemed it then necessary to extend to the
plaintiff the especial protection of the court; because of her age
and infirmities. And if by reason of that infirmity merely, the
court can in no way cause that to be done, which when in a sound
state of mind she had bound herself to do, the most manifest
injustice might ensue; and that too not from any substantial, but
merely because of a technical or formal objection. If, as has been
said, this court can declare, that she shall not hereafter execute any
deed without its consent; the converse of the proposition seems
necessarily to follow—that this court can by its consent or decree
direct a conveyance to be made by her to the defendant according
to the promise by which she is bound.

There*can be no doubt, that a specific execution of this promise
would be decreed against the legal representatives of the plaintiff

(h) Owen v. Davies, 1 Ves. 82; Pegge v. Skynner, 1 Cox. 23; Hall v. Warren,
9 Ves. 611; Shelf. Lun. 429.—(i) Leving v. Caverly, Prec. Chan. 229; Sheldon v.
Aland, 3 P. Will. Ill, note; Bird v. Lefevre, 4 Bro. C. C. 100; Wilson v. Grace,
14 Ves. 172; Attorney General v. Waddington, 1 Mad. Rep. 321; Hewlett v. Wil-
draham, 5 Mad. 423; Wartnaby v. Wartnaby, 1 Jac. Rep. 377; Ex parte Clarke,
2 Russ. 575; Chambers v. Donaldson, 9 East, 471; Whitehorn v. Hines, 1 Mun. 557 ;
Horner v. Marshall, 5 Mun. 466; 1 Fonb. 64; Mitf. Plea. 103; Prac. Reg. 71.
(j) Lord Donegal's Case, 2 Ves 408,