If a bargain is voidable on the ground of intoxication, the same consequences follow as in the case of a bargain voidable for insanity. The transaction may, therefore, be ratified.91 What constitutes ratification gives rise to the same question as in the case of insanity, and, therefore, a failure to disaffirm the transaction within a reasonable time after becoming sober will, unless the drunkard remains ignorant of what he' did when intoxicated, amount to a ratification.92 If goods are bought when drunk and kept when sober, the buyer must pay the price. The same reasons that require return of consideration as a condition precedent to the avoidance of a lunatic's bargain apply with even greater force to the case of an intoxicated person,93 and if the consideration is not restored the drunkard may be sued for it.94 Even though the drunkard should have spent or wasted the consideration while intoxicated, the rule should not be relaxed unless the person dealing with the drunkard knowingly took fraudulent advantage of his condition.95
L. 138; Hunter v. Tolbard, 47 W. Va. 258, 34 8. E. 737. A note signed under these circumstances was said to be "void as between the parties" in Green v. Gunsten, 164 Wis. 69, 142 N. W. 261, 46 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 212.
88Oakley v. Shelley, 129 Ala. 467, 29 So. 386. The court said at p. 470: "Unlike general and permanent insanity and idiocy, drunkenness does not create such legal incapacity as will alone render a contract wholly void. Though it may furnish the party suffering from it ground for rescission, yet being voidable only, the contract may be affirmed and made binding by him after he becomes sober." See also Snead v. Scott, 182 Ala. 97, 62 So. 36; Sellers v. Knight, 185 Ala. 96, 64 So. 329.
89 Burroughs v. Richman, 1 Green (N. J. L.), 233, 238, 23 Am. Deo. 717. See also Cook v. Bagnell Timber Co., 78 Ark. 47, 54, 94 S. W. 695, quoted infra, Sec. 263, n. 3.
90See Youn v. Lamont, 56 Minn. 216, 57 N. W. 478.
As the lack of intelligence of an intoxicated person is his own fault, his privilege of avoiding a bargain made while intoxicated should not enable him to regain property transferred by him and subsequently transferred to one who paid value for it in good faith without notice of the circumstances under which it had been acquired from the original owner, or to escape liability to a holder in due course of negotiable paper made by him. The latter question has arisen several times and it has been said that the better opinion supports the right of the maker, if his drunkenness is so complete as to suspend all rational thought, to set up his condition as a defence even against such a holder.96 Most modern decisions, however, with good reason, take the opposite view.97 In the case of ordinary chattel property, as in the case of negotiable paper, if a title voidable for a cause personal to the original grantee is transferred to one who pays value without notice of the voidable character of the title, an indefeasible title is created. It has already been argued and reasons have been given for confining a drunkard's right of avoiding his contracts to such as were made with persons who knew of his condition.98 The same reasons should protect a bona fide purchaser. Under the Uniform Sales Act it is clear that there can be no right to avoid a voidable title after the property has been acquired by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.99
92 Matthews v. Baxter, L. R. 8 Ex. 132; Johnson v. Harmon, 94 U. 8. 371, 24 L. Ed. 271; Oakley v. Shelley, 129 Ala. 467, 29 So. 385; Sellers v. Knight, 185 Ala. 96, 64 So. 329; Strickland v. Parlia & Orendorf Co., 118 Ga. 213, 44 8. E. 997; Hawley v. Howell, 60 Iowa, 79, 14 N. W. 199; Carpenter v. Rodgers, 61 Mich. 384,
28 N. W. 156, 1 Am. St. Rep. 595; Easton'e Adm. v. Perry, 29 Mo. 96; Smith v. Williamson, S Utah, 219, 30 Pac. 753. But see Newell v. Fisher, 11 8m. & M. 431, 49 Am. Deo. 66; Berkley v. Cannon, 4 Rich. L. 136.
92Wright v. Waller, 127 Ala. 557,
29 So. 57, 54 L. R. A. 440; Mansfield p. Watson, 2 Iowa, 111; Youn v. lament, 66 Minn. 216, 67 N. W. 478;
Spoonheim v. Spoonheim, 14 N. Dak. 380, 104 N. W. 845; Bush v. Breinig, 113 Pa. St. 310, 316, 6 Atl. 86, 57 Am. Rep. 460; Fowler v. Meadow Brook Co., 208 Pa. St. 473, 57 Atl 959; Williams v. Inabnet, 1 Bailey, 343; Smith v. Williamson, 8 Utah, 21ft, 30 Pac. 753. Contra, Reinskopf v. Rogge, 37 Ind. 207.
93Joest v. Williams, 42 Ind. 565, 13 Am. Rep. 377; Fowler v. Meadow Brook Co., 208 Pa. St. 473. Compare Thaokrah v. Haas, 119 U. S. 499, 7 S. Ct. 311, 30 L. Ed. 486.
94 Haneklau v. Felchlin, 57 Mo. App. 602.
95Compare Thackrah v Haas, 119 U. S. 499,7 S. Ct. 311, 30 L. Ed. 486.