stated is correct in principle, and well sustained by the weight of authority. 2. It is contended by counsel for appellant that the doctrine of comity and respect for the judicial orders and decrees of another state should be applied in the case at bar. It is possible that, if this contract of insurance was one which under the laws of this state might lawfully be made, it would be a proper case in which the courts of this state would entertain and determine such an action. But that question we do not determine. The contract of insurance, so far as the right of the company to insure property in this state is involved, was void. By § 1144 of McClain's Code it was absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly taking any risks or transacting any business of insurance in this state unless possessed of $200,000 of actually paid up capital, and complying with other conditions named in said section. It being admitted that there was not even an attempt to comply with the law, the plaintiff is in no position to demand that under any policy of comity he is entitled to maintain the action. In Hurd v. Elizabeth, 41 N. J. L. 1, it is said that "the more correct definition of the legal rule would be that a receiver cannot sue or otherwise exercise his functions. in a foreign jurisdiction whenever such acts, if sanctioned, would interfere with the policy established by law in such foreign jurisdiction." If the rule contended for by counsel for appellant in this case were to be adopted by this court, it would be in direct conflict with the legislative policy of this state. have already determined this question in Seamans v. Zimmerman, 91 Iowa, 363, where we held that a foreign insurance company, not having complied with the statute above cited, cannot recover assessments under the policy of insurance issued on property in this state. We that said company was possessed of the requisite capital to authorize it to transact business in the state of Iowa, or that said Mutual Fire Insurance Company had in any manner complied with the laws of the state of Iowa, or was entitled to write insurance or transact business in said state." We will not set out other grounds of demurrer, for the reason that we think a proper determination of that part of it above quoted is conclusive of the rights of the parties. It presents the single question whether the plaintiff can maintain the action, or, as stated by appellee's counsel in argument: "Will a foreign receiver of an insurance company, which had never complied with the laws of the state so as to be entitled to transact business herein, be permitted to maintain an action in the courts of this state upon the premium notes executed to such foreign insurance company by a citizen of Iowa for a policy written by it upon property in this state?" It is to be observed that both in the statement of facts and in the demand for judgment this action is founded upon the premium notes. Copies of the notes are not set out in the petition nor exhibited therewith for the alleged reason that the notes are not in the possession of the plaintiff. It appears to us that this court has, in effect, determined the question here presented. In Ayres v. Siebel, 82 Iowa, 347, it was held that a trustee of a foreign corporation will not be permitted to maintain an action in the courts of this state upon a contract between such corporation and a citizen of this state. It was conceded in that case that the same rule applied to a receiver, except that in such case the right to maintain an action has sometimes been recognized as a matter of state comity. And the claim is made that such a rule is applicable to the facts here presented. It is to be conceded that there is not entire harmony in the decisions of courts upon this question. We do not think that under the facts in this case there is any comity which can properly be invoked to sustain the action. In High on Receivers (239) the following is stated to be the true rule: "Upon the question of the territorial extent of a receiver's jurisdiction and powers for the purpose of instituting actions connected with his receiver- 4. But it is said that the assessments made ship, the prevailing doctrine, established by by the plaintiff under the decree of the circuit the Supreme Court of the United States and court of Cook county are an adjudication or sustained by the weight of authority in various judgment of that court as against the defendstates, is that the receiver has no extraterrito- ant, and that said adjudication is binding on rial jurisdiction or power of official action, and the courts of this state. We think this contencannot, as a matter of right, go into a foreign tion is not sustained by the facts stated in the state or jurisdiction and there institute a suit petition nor by the decree. The petition, as for the recovery of demands due to the person we have said, is not founded on the decree. or estate subject to his receivership. His func- The cause of action is plainly stated to be upon tions and powers, for the purposes of litiga- the premium notes. It ought to be undertion, are held to be limited to the courts of the stood, also, that the amount is not for any fixed state within which he was appointed, and the and unalterable sum. It is true, it is named as principles of comity between nations and states, 65 per cent of the premium notes, and for failwhich recognize the judicial decisions of one tri-ure to pay for thirty days the receiver was rebunal as conclusive in another, do not apply to quired to collect the whole amount of the notes. such a case and will not warrant a receiver in That this decree was no adjudication is also bringing an action in a foreign court of jurisdic-plainly shown by the record. Before the intion." Elaborate arguments are presented by surance company became bankrupt, the notes the respective counsel in this case, and nu- were delivered up to the defendant, and the merous authorities are cited, which we have policy was surrendered. There is no presumpexamined, and, without citing them or review- tion that there was any fraud in this transacing them, we believe that the rule as above'tion, and when the contract was thus canceled 3. It is urged in behalf of appellant that the statute above cited is unconstitutional. We have given that question proper examination and attention, and we discover no ground, either upon principle or authority, for sustaining this contention. We do not believe it to be necessary to give further consideration to this point in the case. the defendant was no longer a policy holder in the company, and was not a party to the proceedings in the Illinois court. The case requires no further consideration, and the judgment of the District Court is af firmed. PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME George B. NEAL, Appt., v. William H. BLACK et al. (177 Pa. 83.) 1. An incompetent person executing a deed of trust for the preservation of his property need not fully appreciate all the technical intricacies of the transaction to make the deed binding. It is sufficient if he is not deceived or misled by fear or favor. 2. That a voluntary deed by an incompetent person to protect his property was made under advice of his uncle and the attorney for his guardian will not render it invalid, if they had no adverse interest in the estate, and there is nothing in their relations to COURT. pointed his guardian, and acted as such until plaintiff came of age, on the 26th day of September. 1889; that on the 19th day of October, 1889, plaintiff executed a paper by which he conveyed to William H. Black all his estate in trust, and subsequently, on December 20, 1889, the said Black appointed Thomas H. Lane as trustee in his stead. The deed is an absolute Conveyance of all of plaintiff's property to William H. Black, his heirs and assigns, and gives to him the absolute and unqualified power to take charge of the same, to sell at public or private sale, to invest and reinvest, etc., at the will of the trustee, and to appoint a trustee in his stead. It is further provided that: 'Out of the net income of said trust estate, which shall not be subject to my control or engagements, to pay from time to time such sums as he (said trustee) shall deem proper for the liberal and comfortable support and 3. A voluntary deed by an incompetent maintenance of myself and any family and esperson for the protection of his estate tablishment I may acquire or have, or should cannot be revoked as improvident if its support, for which sums my receipts shall be general purpose is wise and proper, because it vouchers. To reinvest and accumulate the restrips him of all his property, is irrevocable, mainder, if any, of such net income during leaves the portion to be expended by him at the my life, and at my death to convey and assign discretion of the trustee, makes no provision for the whole of said estate, with all its accumufuture contingencies, and does not require the lations, as I by my last will, or writing in the trustee to give security, permits him to appoint nature of such last will, may direct and apa successor without security, while it gives him point, and, in default of such will or testamenunlimited power as to conversion of investments tary writing, to such persons as would inherit and does not require him to account to anybody. my estate under the intestate laws of the state 4. One who makes a voluntary deed for of Pennsylvania, in such shares and interests his own benefit cannot revoke his act except as by such law directed.' The trustee is ausubject to the approval of a court having juris-thorized to retain $500 annually out of the in him and his estate to make them incompetent advisers. diction of such matters. (October 5, 1896.) APPEAL by plaintiff from decree of the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, for Allegheny County refusing to set aside a deed of trust. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court below, which was delivered by Slagle, J., and was as follows: trustee. The bill in this case was filed for the purpose of enforcing a revocation of a voluntary deed of trust made by plaintiff to William H. Black, who, under authority contained in the deed, subsequently appointed Thomas H. Lane as trustee in his stead, who is still acting as The bill sets forth that plaintiff is the son of James Lawrence Neal and Margaret Neal, both of whom died when he was a child of tender years; that his mother was a daughter of George Black, from whom he inherited a large estate; that Thomas H. Lane was apNOTE.-For the power to revoke or set aside a voluntary trust or settlement, see note to Ewing v. Jones (Ind.) 15 L. R. A. 75. come as compensation. The conveyance is made irrevocable. The bill further alleges as follows: Fifth. Your orator further avers: That at the time of executing said paper, Exhibit A, and for a long time prior thereto, he lived at the house of his grandmother, Mrs. Jane Black, and said paper was prepared at the instance of William H. Black, who is his uncle, and who lived at the same home of said Mrs. Jane B. Black, until a few months before the preparation of said paper, and continued to visit at said home frequently. Your orator had no knowledge in relation to said paper, or the contents thereof, until the same was presented to him by said William H. Black for signature, on October 19, 1889. That he executed said paper solely at the solicitation and upon the advice of said William H. Black, and at the time he was entirely inexperienced in business, unacquainted with the extent and value of his estate, or its conditions, the information in relation thereto being in possession of said Lane and Black; and they having concealed the same from him; and in executing said paper he acted on the suggestion and advice of said Black, without any independent advice, and under an entire misapprehension a to the terms and legal effect thereof. Sixth. "The main question in dispute is as to the That said William H. Black and Thomas H. mental capacity and business ability of George Lane, although requested, have neglected and B. Neal, and should be first considered, as it refused to render an account of said trust. has a bearing upon the other questions of fact Seventh. That on February 22, 1894, be exe and law. The testimony of George B. Neal, cuted a revocation of said trust, etc. The de- and his manter upon the stand, would indifendants in their answer, admit all the allega- cate that be is not a man of fall mental vigor tions of the bill, except those contained in the or average intelligence, though his testimoty fifth paragraph, which they deny, and set was to some extent affected by his defective forth at length the circumstances under which bearing. He could not tell when his father, the deed of October 19, 1889, was made, and mother, and grandfather died. These events allege that it was made with full information happened before he knew anything: but an as to his estate, and knowledge of its purposes, ordinary person would have inquired, and reand that he was satisfied with it until after he was membered such important matters. He says secretly married in September, 1993; that they be did not know he had a guardian, or had refused to give a statement of his property, be any property, until about two weeks before be cause they believed that persons other than came of age There are not many young men plaintiff were endeavoring to obtain control of of that age, with a fortune of $100,000, who his property. They deny that the revocation would have been ignorant of that fact, or who was of any effect, because the deed is in terms would not have inquired as to the matter. irrevocable, and to rovoke the same would When he undertook to give the amount of work great injury to the plaintiff. moneys paid to him by Mr. Lane in 1893, he "It will be observed that it is not disputed became thoroughly confused, and could give that George B. Neal, at the time of the execu- no intelligible answer. Dr. Willard was his tion of the deed in question, was competent to attending physician from infancy until he was make a contract. The plaintiff does not al- sixteen or seventeen years old. He testified lege that he was incompetent, and in fact that, in infancy, George was affected by marclaims that he is now fully capable of manag- asmus, and his development was very slow. ing his own affairs, and does not show such He advised his grandmother that he did not marked improvement in his condition as to think it was proper for him to arrive at the justify an allegation that he was not then le-, age of twenty-one, unless some disposition was gally competent. Of course, the plaintiff's case made of his affairs, or someone was appointed depends upon his capacity at that time to make to look after him. He also was of the opinion a valid contract. There is no evidence in the that the best thing that could have been done case to show want of legal capacity at that time. to develop his mental condition was to keep Plaintiff's bill is based upon circumstances at him at home, under a tutor or governess; that tending the execution of the paper, and the there was no use sending him to school, because character of the instrument itself. Though he could not take an education. Dr. Fleming no request was made by plaintiff for specific had attended him at times for four or five findings of fact or of law, the grounds of the years. He says: 'He had no capacity for application are very clearly set out in the ex- understanding what I was talking about. haustive and able argument presented by coun- In mental condition he was a child, simply. sel, in propositions as follows: First. There His mental development was incomplete. He being no power of revocation in this deed, could read, and had a personal identity. He and it having been prepared, and the signature was neat and cleanly in his person. That thereto procured, by persons who stood in a showed that his moral condition was good. confidential relation to Neal, the burden of But the intelligence was defective and his judg proof rests on defendants. Second. This bur-ment faulty.' He gave it as his opinion that den can only be met by clear and decisive Neal did not have mental capacity for dealproof. Third. This burden is upon defendants ing with a considerable estate. Miss Benson to show, by such clear and decisive proof, these things: (a) That Neal had a true and full knowledge of his estate, its extent and value, and of the income therefrom; (b) that he had independent advice in regard to the act which he was performing; (c) that the terms and provisions of the deed were proper and reasonable; (d) that he had a full, clear, and intelligent understanding of the act he was engaged in, and of the effect and consequences of the deed which he was executing.' The defense is that Neal was informed of the amount and character of his estate; that the control of his estate was put into the hands of a trustee at his own request, and he was fully informed as to the contents and purposes of the deed, and it was made irrevocable at his request; and further that, though then and now competent to make a valid contract, he is of weak intellect, without qualifications for the transaction of business, and incapable of acquiring such qualifications as would make it safe to intrust him with control of his estate. was employed as teacher for eleven years, buy or sell Q. Do you think George could be safely trusted to invest $15,000 to $20,000? "A. I don't know about that. That would be hard to tell. drilled in, and found that he couldn't use them. I had any experience in business of any kind to At end of year, do not think any progress was manage or transact business, made. He was very well in history. Seemed safely.' He was asked: rather broad and well informed in many things, was fairly good in geography, was fairly good in spelling, and was fairly good in writing.' Samuel Rea, an uncle by marriage, knew George from childhood. Saw him frequently at Mrs. Black's and at his own home. Took George to Europe in 1892. He says of him: 'He was very backward as a boy, and seemed incapable of taking an education such as the average boy is able to take. He has a good disposition, exceedingly kind-hearted, very easily influenced by those whom he cares for, but is totally unable to do any business. In my judgment, he is totally unfit to take care of his estate. If a thing is explained to him, he seems to understand it thoroughly, but it is liable to get away from him.' These witnesses have no connection with this case. William H. Black, Thomas H. Lane, and W. A. Lewis, express similar opinions. "On part of plaintiff, a number of witnesses were called to testify to the capacity and ability of George Neal. Rev. Dr. Fulton had known him for some time. During last summer and the previous summer had correspondence with him, and in January of 1894, taught him for twenty or twenty-five days. He details the course of study, and says that he made a very marked improvement, and adds: 'With the right kind of education, I am satisfied that he would continue to improve; and while I make that statement, there are several things to be taken into consideration.' He was asked this question: 'Assuming that this young man's estate, as it exists at present, to be invested in securities,-Pennsylvania Railroad stock, and the remainder in school, city, and county bonds, etc.,-I wish you would state what your judgment is as to his ability to take care of that property, invested in that way;' to which he answered, 'I think he could do it.' On cross-examination he said that he had not tested George as to his studies after the lessons ceased; that he did not think that George had an ordinarily developed mind; and explained: 'In the first place, George is one of those men in whom the sutures of the brain become hardened early. In the second place, I think his education has not been sufficient, or of the kind, to develop the mind of any boy.' He further said, 'I think he could transact ordinary business.' He was asked the question, 'Suppose he was given his estate to day, of $200,000, invested in stocks and bonds; do you think he could be trusted to convey that property, and reinvest it safely?' To which he answered: 'No, I don't. I think he can manage that as at present invested. He could take care of it with such advice from counsel or business men that he could secure, but I don't think, without that, he could manage any business complications.' R. G. Gamble, an uncle of Neal's wife. He knew George about eight years. In answer to the same question put to Dr. Fulton says: 'Well, I believe George could take care of money, and I believe he knows when he sees a good investment. I think in time George could be educated, with a little assistance, to manage it himself. Of course, it is very hard for a man that has never 666 "Q. You don't think he could at present? A. Not without assistance, and I don't think any person could.' to "He advised George to revoke the deed of trust, and gives a statement of the circumstances: 'I told him it would have to be fixed in some shape. Either he would have to take care of it himself, or have it fixed so he couldn't loose it, and nobody could beat him out of it.' William B. Neal, an uncle, says: 'I consider that George is very careful and cautious in any undertaking, but, owing to his bad education, he would not be able to take care of his affairs without further education and advice. Had him in office from the time he was seventeen or eighteen years old until after he came of age.' W. B. Moyle knew him about eight years. 'Says, He is very cautious in money matters.' In answer question put to Dr. Fulton, says: 'Well, invested in first-class securities, I suppose, I think, I know he would be cabable of taking care of it.' And again: 'Well, I don't think George would be able, perhaps, to increase it to any great extent; but as invested now, he would be able to take care of it.' Reese Neal, an uncle, says: 'He visited our house a great deal, and went with us to Michigan once for two weeks. Bought his own ticket, and looked after his own finances. Always considered him very careful.' In answer to the question: If his estate, consisting as it now does, of Pennsylvania Railroad stock and municipal and state bonds, was put into his possession, do you think he would be able to manage that property? "A. Yes, sir; I think he could.' In cross-examination he said: 'By "managing" I mean that if he had that estate left to him, and if he struck some matter that he didn't understand, he would have sense enough to go and see where it was wrong, if he thought it was wrong.' I think he is fully developed mentally. I think he is a little slow in some things, but I think that is partly on account of his hearing. He is a little slow in learning. "Q. You think it would be safe to give him $200,000, and let him go out and take care of it himself? "A. Yes; because he would take advice where he didn't understand.' "Dr. Samuel Ayers, an expert physician, made an examination of Neil for the purpose of testifying in this case. He had ten or twelve interviews with him. Says that he is possessed of a very fair degree of mental capacity, a little under the average in some respects, and average in others. In the mathematical faculty he is defective. In some of his faculties-his observation, for instance-he was very good. .. His judgment was apparently good in various matters, perhaps defective in some directions. His attention was close and acute. His speech was clear and coherent in all matters. Special senses all normal, except hearing. Handwriting particularly good, and composition good. Expression of face natural | those who met him casually. He was sent to and normal. Caution and care normal.' As school, provided with teachers, given very to mathematics, he is decidedly under the considerable opportunity for travel; and his average, in almost every direction you take him. uncle William B. Neal says that for several His reasoning powers are quite good.' 'Has years he was taken into his office, with a view difficulty in making change.' I think there of his learning something of business. Dr. has been some defect in his development. This Willard, who attended him from infancy, and marasmus probably stopped the organic growth Dr. Fleming, who attended him when grown, in the brain. It was an interruption in the would be able to form a more reliable judg early years, undoubtedly; but he seems to ment as to his capacity than a physician called have overcome it in later years largely, par- in to make an examination. ticularly during his married life. I have no doubt that he has developed in many of his faculties much more readily than before.' Be ing asked: Take George in the condition in which you found him, and give him the possion and control of, say $50,000; do you think that would be a safe thing to do?' He answered: 'Well, yes. I will answer you by yes; that it would be comparatively safe.' 646 A. No. I don't believe I would. "The next question of dispute is as to the making of the deed of trust and the circumstances attending it. Defendants claim that, as the allegations of the bill are denied, they should have been supported by the testimony of two witnesses, and, standing on the testimony of Neal alone, all questions thus raised should be resolved against the plaintiff. The plaintiff contends that the relation of the parties casts the burden upon defendants. The testimony having been produced, we think it should be considered and determined upon its weight. This question may be considered under plaintiff's third proposition, to wit, that it must appear (a) that Neal had a true and full knowledge of his estate, its extent and value, and of the income therefrom; (b) that he had a full, clear, and intelligent understanding of the act he was engaged in, and of the effect and consequences of the deed he was executing; (c) that he had independent advice in regard to the act which he was performing. These propositions may be more strongly stated Q. Why wouldn't you do it, doctor? A. Well, I would not do it for this reason: I think probably he could not manage safely such a large sum without he had some experience, and without some assistance too. He might get along with it, probably, with some losses; but I believe he is capable of profiting by experience of that kind, because he is cap-than the law of the case justifies, but they sugable of development. **Q. If invested as it is said to be invested now, in Pennsylvania Railroad stock and municipal and county bonds, would he be able to take care of it? "A. I think he would, from what I have seen of him.' Mrs. Neal finds nothing wrong. It is just the way they kept him.' "A fair conclusion from all this testimony is that though George B. Neal, the plaintiff, is able to understand an ordinary proposition, when presented, and competent to make a contract, his intellectual powers are by nature weak, and have not been fully developed. None of the witnesses for plaintiff state unqualifiedly his ability to take charge of, and safely manage, his estate. They differ from the witnesses on part of the defendants as to the amount of his mental power, and the chances for improvement. They all agree at present that he would require assistance. George himself says that he thinks he is able to take care of his estate, but is not capable of doing business. Thinks he has improved a little in the last year or two, and says: 'I at tribute that to-since my marriage-that I have learned a little more; have got out among people; by getting out more with people, business men especially. But I will learn a great deal more. The criticism made by plaintiff's witnesses as to the education of Neil does not seem to be well founded. There is no evidence that his grandmother and uncles, with whom he lived, were not anxious to do everything best calculated to develop his powers. Those with whom he passed his daily life would be better able to judge as to what was best than gest the questions of fact in dispute. George Yes, sir;" and he said, "Well, sign this." I signed the paper, and he didn't say anything for a while; and I said, "Will, can I look at the papers?" and he said, "Certainly," and I looked over it. Just glanced down each page, and turned it over, but I couldn't understand anything about it. I never saw such a paper as that before. Then I folded it up again, and handed it over to him. He says, "Do you understand it?" I says, "Yes," but I meant that I had appointed Mr. Lane, and that was all there was of it. Then he asked, "There is some other part of it I can't quite remember,” but he showed me a paper of some kind that he called a statement. He held it in his hand, but I could not tell you what was on it. I only |