Legal Definitions - quamdiu sustinuit istam furiositatem

The phrase quamdiu sustinuit istam furiositatem is a historical legal Latin expression that translates to "how long he has labored under that insanity." It was historically used in legal contexts to inquire about the duration of a person's mental incapacity or unsoundness of mind, particularly when assessing their ability to make decisions, enter into agreements, or be held responsible for their actions.

• Example 1: Contesting a Will

  Imagine a scenario in the past where an elderly individual, shortly before their death, made significant changes to their will, disinheriting close family members in favor of a newly acquired acquaintance. The aggrieved family members might challenge the will's validity, arguing that the deceased lacked the mental capacity to make such decisions. A court would then inquire, "quamdiu sustinuit istam furiositatem?" to determine if the deceased had been suffering from a mental condition that impaired their judgment for a significant period, especially around the time the will was altered. This assessment would help establish whether the will was made during a period of sound mind or mental incapacity.

• Example 2: Voiding a Business Agreement

  Consider a situation where a person entered into a complex business contract, agreeing to unfavorable terms. Later, their legal guardians or family might seek to void the contract, claiming the individual was not mentally competent to understand the agreement's implications at the time of signing. The court would need to investigate the individual's mental state. The question "quamdiu sustinuit istam furiositatem?" would be central to ascertaining if the individual's mental impairment was an ongoing condition that prevented them from forming a valid, binding contract at that specific moment.

• Example 3: Defense in a Criminal Case (Historical Context)

  In a historical criminal trial, a defendant might have committed an act that would typically be considered a crime. However, their defense could argue that the defendant was not mentally responsible for their actions due to severe mental illness. The court would then need to establish the defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged offense. The inquiry "quamdiu sustinuit istam furiositatem?" would be critical to determine if the defendant's "insanity" was a prolonged condition and whether it was present and severe enough to negate criminal intent (known as mens rea) when the act occurred.