Carawan v. . Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A contract entered into by a person who is mentally incompetent is voidable and not void. ... At tbe election of tbe incompetent and upon tbe return of tbe consideration and tbe restoration of tbe status quo, it will be annulled by a court of equity. “Under certain conditions such a contract may be avoided by tbe incompetent even when be is unable to place the other party to tbe contract in statu quo, but tbe greater weight of authority supports tbe rule that where a contract with an insane person has been entered into in good faith,-without fraud or imposition, for a fair consideration, of which tbe incompetent has received tbe benefit, without notice of tbe infirmity, and before an adjudication of insanity, and has been executed in whole or in part, it will not be set aside unless tbe parties can be restored to their original position. . . . “Thus, in an action to rescind a contract, as bere, for that tbe plaintiff was, at tbe time, mentally incompetent, tbe plaintiff must show insanity or mental incompetency at tbe time tbe contract was entered into. Upon such showing tbe contract will be annulled unless it is made to appear— tbe burden being on the defendant — that tbe defendant (1) was ignorant of tbe mental incapacity; (2) bad no notice thereof such as would put a reasonably prudent person upon inquiry; (3) paid a fair and full consideration; (4) took no unfair advantage of plaintiff; and (5) that tbe plaintiff has not restored and is not able to restore tbe considerat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lawson v. Bennett

2. “Thus, in an action to rescind a contract, as here, for that the plaintiff was, at the time, mentally incompetent, the plaintiff must show insanity or mental incompetency at the time the contract was entered into. Upon such showing the contract will be annulled unless it is made to appear — the burden being on the defendant — that the defendant (1) was ignorant of the mental capacity; (2) had no notice thereof such as would put a reasonably prudent person upon inquiry; (3) paid a fair and full consideration; (4) took no unfair advantage of plaintiff; and (5) that the plaintiff has not restored and is not able to restore the consideration or to make adequate compensation therefor. Wadford v. Gillette , 193 N.C. 413 , 137 S.E. 314 , and cases cited. Creekmore v. Baxter, supra ( 121 N.C. 31 ); Story Eq. Jur., sec. 227; Adams Eq., 183.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dougherty v. . Byrd