8 Utah 219 | Utah | 1892
This suit was instituted on a promissory note bearing date June 24, 1890, payable to Goodhue & Yan Meter, in one year, for the sum of $400, and signed by the respondent, and indorsed by them to the plaintiffs. The respondent in his answer admitted that he signed the note, but averred that he was so drunk at the time that he was incapable of understanding the effect of his act. It does appear from the evidence in the record that the defendant was intoxicated; but whether he was thereby deprived of his reason, and of his capacity to understand the transaction, the evidence is so conflicting that reasonable men might reach different conclusions as to the existence of the fact. Therefore the court is not authorized to say that the finding of the jury upon that issue was wrong. The law formerly was that a party to a contract could not avoid it because he was so drunk at the time he signed it that he could not understand it. It has also been held that a party to- a contract cannot avoid it on account of intoxication, unless another party to it used means to induce such intoxication; but the decided weight of authority now is that a party may avoid a contract made by him when he is so drunk that he cannot understand its effects and consequences, though no such means were used. It is a violation of moral obligation and legal duty to take advantage of a man in such a defenseless situation, and, if the intoxication was induced by the party taking such advantage, he would be guilty of still greater moral turpitude. Barrett v. Buxton, 2 Aiken, 167; Bush v. Breinig, 113 Pa. St. 310, 6 Atl. Rep. 86; Prentice v. Achorn, 2 Paige, 29; 7 Daniel, Neg.
It also appears from the evidence that the defendant delivered the note sued on and a Holstein bull in consideration of a Durham bull delivered to him by the payees of the note; that he took the Durham home with him, and the same night returned him to the payees, but they refused to receive the animal, and he was left at their premises, and their agent took care of him; that three or four days afterwards, when the defendant was sober, he went to the payees, and, in pursuance of an agreement with the.m, .took a Durham heifer in the place of the Durham bull, and drove her to his home, and that he has kept her ever since, and that the payees kept the Holstein. This taking of the heifer by the defendant when he was sober, and treating her as his own, is strong evidence of ratification of his signature to the note. Conceding that the defendant was so drunk at the time he signed the note that he was incapable of consenting to it, that did not • make it absolutely void, but only voidable, and the defendant, when he became sober, could ratify it; and an intention to accept the contract with a full knowledge of his rights, after he became sober, should be inferred from acts indicating such an intention, and exchanging the heifer for the animal he was unwilling to keep, after he became sober, indicates such an intention. Benj. Sales (Benn. Amer. Notes), § 30, p. 30; Bush v. Breinig, 113 Pa. St. 310, 6 Atl. Rep. 86; Boyden v. Boyden, 9 Metc. (Mass.) 519; Boody v. McKenney, 23 Me. 517. For the reasons indicated above the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with direction to the court below to grant a new trial.
