It is not every degree of intoxication that renders a person incapable in a legal sense. In order to make out incapacity it is necessary to prove that a man was so far intoxicated moral of the guardian, there is no longer a conclusive presumption of disability. Willwerth v Leonard, 156 Mass.277, 31 N. E.299. See also Mohr v. Tulip, 40 Wis. 66; and while that guardianship lasts it is conclusive only upon domestic courts. Talbot v. Chamberlain, 149 Mass. 57, 59, 20 N. E. 305, 3 L. R. A. 254.

80 Thorpe v. Hanscom, 64 Minn. 201, 66 N. W. 1; Blaisdell v. Holmes, 48 Vt. 492.

81 Gillet v. Shaw, 117 Md. 508, 83 Atl. 394, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 47; Rut-ledge v. Rutledge, 118 Md. 552, 85 Atl. 661; West v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 151 N. C. 231, 65 3. E. 979.

82 See Snook v. Watte, 11 Beav. 105; McCormack v. Littler, 85 111. 62; Stitzel v. Farley, 148 111. App. 635; Mott v Mott, 49 N. J. Eq. 192, 22 Atl. 997; In re Gangwere's Est., 14 Pa. 417, 53 Am. Dec. 554.

83 Weeks v. Reliance Fertiliser Co.,

20 Ga. App. 498, 93 S. E. 152; Woleott v. Conn. life Ins. Co., 137 Mich. 309. In Hughes v Jones, 116 N. Y. 67, 22 N. E. 446, 5 L. R. A. 632, 15 Am. St. Rep. 386, the rule is stated that before office found though within the period during which the lunatic is declared by the finding to have been insane, the evidence of incapacity is only presumptive and may be overthrown by satisfactory evidence of sanity, but "the presumption whether conclusive or prima facie extends to all the world, and includes all persons whether they have notice of the inquisition or not." Cf. Hill v. Day, 34 N.J. Eq. 150. By statute in New York after inquisition and confirmation a lunatic's contracts are void. O'Reilly v. Sweeney, 54 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 408, 105 N. Y. S. 1033.

84Redden v. Baker, 86 Ind. 191; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Wiswell, 56 Kan. 765, 44 Pac. 996, 35 L. R. A. 258.