¶1 Tbe defendant, Nettie Ball, interposed a demurrer to tbe complaint on tbe ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against bei-, which was overruled with tbe understanding that tbe allegations against her husband were to be considered as applicable to her. Tbis was tantamount to an amendment curing t-be defect, and was so understood by tbe trial court. It is sufficient to defeat a renewal of her demurrer here. Tbe complaint states a cause of actiozz. Cotton Mills v. Mfg. Co., 218 N. C., 560.
¶2 Tbe defendants also challenge the sufficiency of tbe evidence to support tbe finding of mental incapacity on tbe part of plaintiff’s ward to execute tbe deed of 23 January, 1939, conveying tbe property in question to Mae Roberts Freeman. Dr. J. N. Moore, a medical expert, testified that be bad known plaintiff’s ward for twenty years, “I think he is feeble-minded and would not know right from wrong.” There was other lay testimony to tbe same effect; “that he is not capable of transacting business;” that he received no benefit from tbe transaction, etc. It would seem that this evidence is amply sufficient to warrant tbe finding uizder authority of what was said in Lamb v. Perry, 169 N. C., 436, 86 S. E., 179.
¶3 There is no exception to the manner in which tbe issue was answered. In an action of this kind, the parties may waive a jury trial and submit the whole controversy to tbe court for final determination, both as to the law and the facts. McGuinn v. High Point, 217 N. C., 449, 8 S. E. (2d), 462.
¶4*331 The remaining exceptions are not of sufficient moment to call for any discussion. They are not sustained. The validity of the trial will be upheld.
¶5 No error.