Westlaw India Delivery Summary Request made by :

IP USER

Request made on:

Wednesday, 17 August, 2011 at 17:47 IST

Content Type:

Cases > UK Cases

Title :

Pitt v Smith

Delivery selection:

Current Document

Number of documents delivered:

1

© 2011 Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited

Page1

*1297 Pitt v Smith 10 July 1811

(1811) 3 Campbell 33 170 E.R. 1296 1811 Wednesday, July 10, 1811. (An agreement signed by a person in a state of complete intoxication, is void.) The declaration stated that a certain agreement was entered into between the plaintiff as an agent, and the defendant, for the sale of an estate; and that the defendant afterwards published a libel concerning the plaintiff, alleging that he had induced the defendant to execute this agreement when in a state of intoxication. Plea, the general issue. The attesting witness to the agreement being called, he was asked, in crossexamination, whether the defendant was not actually in a state of complete intoxication when he executed the agreement? The plaintiff's counsel insisted that this question was irregular, there being no justification on the record. [34] Lord Ellenborough.—You have alleged that there was an agreement between the parties; and this allegation you must prove, as it is put in issue by the plea of not guilty; but there was no agreement between the parties, if the defendant was intoxicated in the manner supposed when he signed this paper. He had not an agreeing mind.—Intoxication is good evidence upon a plea of non est factum to a deed, of non concessit to a grant, and of non assumpsit to a promise 1 . It appeared that the defendant had become quite drunk in the company of the plaintiff, before signing the agreement. Whereupon Lord Ellenborough *1298 directed a nonsuit, which the Court of K. B. in the ensuing term refused to set aside. 2 Brougham and E. Lawes for the plaintiff. Garrow for the defendant. [Attornies, Vincent and Hanson.] Campbell

1.

2.

Cole v. Robins , Bul. N. P. 172.

But it seems to have been held in one case, that the mere circumstance of having been in drink is not sufficient to avoid a deed or agreement executed under these circumstances; and that, for this purpose, it is necessary to prove that, through the management or contrivance of him who gained the deed or agreement, the party was drawn in to drink. Johnson v. Medlicott , 3 P. Wins. 130. In writers on the law of Scotland, the doctrine is laid down without any qualifieation; and drunkenness, however produced, is considered as avoiding contracts on he same ground as insanity. “Persons while in a state of absolute drunkenness, and consequently deprived of the exercise of reason, cannot oblige them- [35] -selves; but a lesser degree of drunkenness, which only darkens reason, has not the effect of annulling the contract.” Stair, July 29th, 1672. Lord Hatton. “An obligation granted by a person while he is in a state of absolute and total drunkenness, is ineffectual, because the granter is incapable of consent; for the law has thought it equitable to protect those who have not the use of their reason (even though they should have lost it by their own folly) from the fraud or circumvention of others.” Ersk. Inst. 814, 5. © 2011 Sweet & Maxwell

Page2