Wright v. Waller

• Decision Date: 27 November 1900
• Citation: 29 So. 57,127 Ala. 557
• Parties: WRIGHT v. WALLER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

29 So. 57

127 Ala. 557

WRIGHT v. WALLER.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 27, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Lee county; J. M. Carmichael, Judge.

Action by W. W. Wright against J. E. Waller. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Barnes & Duke, for appellant.

William H. Thomas and C. O. L. Samford, for appellee.

McCLELLAN C.J.

This is an action by Wright against Waller on a contract in writing signed by the latter to pay rent. Defendant sought to avoid the contract on the ground that he was intoxicated when he signed it. There was evidence tending to show that defendant was in a state "of complete drunkenness, dethroning reason, when he signed the paper," and, on the other hand, there was evidence tending to show that he was not drunk at the time. There was no evidence that plaintiff had anything to do with bringing about defendant's intoxicated condition, if he was intoxicated, nor that defendant's mind was impaired by habitual drunkenness nor that the contract was in itself unconscionable or unfair. On this state of case, the court, in its general charge said: "If the defendant was so much under the influence of strong drink or intoxicating liquor that his reason was dethroned to an extent that he could not give that attention to the signing of the note that a reasonably prudent man would be able to give, then the note would be void." And at the request of the defendant the court gave the following charge: "If the jury find from the evidence that the defendant signed the note under such intoxication that he could not give proper attention to it, then the note is not evidence in the case, but void." To each of these instructions the plaintiff excepted, and their soundness vel non is the question presented on this appeal. On this question as to the degree of intoxication necessary to an avoidance of contracts, the following are some of the statements of the governing principle, applicable to cases like this, found in the authorities: "*** Intoxication so deep as to take away the agreeing mind-in other words, to disqualify the mind to comprehend the subject of the contract and its nature and probable consequences-impairs such contract, if made while it lasts, the same as insanity. But mere drunkenness, or being a drunkard, or simply being drunk at the time, where the intoxication does not extend to the degree thus stated, will not impair the contract. To have this effect, it must render the party non compos mentis for the occasion." Bish. Cont. §§ 980, 981. "The contract of a drunken person is voidable, at his option, if it can be shown that at the time of making the contract he was absolutely incapable of understanding what he was doing." Anson, Cont. p. 150. "An express contract entered into when the obligor is in a state of intoxication so as to deprive him of the exercise of his understanding, is voidable." 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 773. Drunkenness must "be such as to incapacitate the party from the proper exercise of his judgment, and prevent him from understanding his contract." Story, Cont. p. 15. "A drunkard, when in a complete state of intoxication, so as not to know what he is doing, has no capacity to contract." 1 Benj. Sales, § 33. "It is evident that drunkenness when it goes so far as to absolutely destroy the reason, renders a person in this state, so long as it continues, incapable of contracting, since it renders him incapable of consent." 1 Poth. Cont. 29. "Where a party, when he enters into a contract, is in such a state of drunkenness as not to know what he is doing, his contract is wholly void," i. e. if he elects to avoid it. 1 Chit. Cont. 192. "Drunkenness is a species of insanity, but the law is not quite clear respecting this disability. Perhaps it stands thus: One cannot defend by proving his drunkenness, unless he can show that the drunkenness was known to the payee, and taken advantage of by him, or that it was complete, and suspended all use of the mind at the time." 1 Pars. Notes & B. 151. Intoxication, "to the extent only that the party did not clearly understand the business" in hand, "is not enough to render the contract voidable or void." Henry v. Ritenour, 31 Ind. 136. "It is also urged that the plaintiff in error is not bound by the transaction, because he was drunk at the time he assigned the note. We think the evidence shows that he was at the time drunk. But he was manifestly not so drunk but he knew what he was engaged in at the time. He, on the trial, testified to the circumstances attending the...