King's Executors v. Bryant's Executors
Opinion of the Court
Let this point be reserved, and let the proof proposed be now made as plaintiff's counsel propose to make it. *Page 343
This was done; and the defendant then proved that the obligor was so drunk at the time he could not stand, and did not know what he was about. But it was insisted that drunkenness alone is no objection; the law requires the party to have been drawn in to drink, and then imposed upon. 3 P. W., 130.
Addendum
If he was so drunk at the time that he did not know what he was about, and if in that situation he was induced to sign a paper for a debt which he did not owe, that was a fraud; and a fraud practiced upon a man, whether drunk or sober, will vitiate the instrument signed by him. The jury will consider whether he was so imposed upon or not.
Verdict for plaintiff; referred to the Supreme Court.
NOTE. — See, upon the first point, the same case in the Supreme Court, where it was affirmed,
Cited: Cameron v. Power Co.,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.