If intoxication is so extreme as to produce legal incapacity, the effect is generally held to be the same as that of insanity; consequently, a contract or sale made under such circumstances is voidable.86 In some jurisdictions where insanity is said to make a lunatic's transactions void, extreme intoxication is also said to make bargains void and for the same reason, namely-lack of mutual assent.87 But in Alabama the court makes a distinction between intoxication and insanity, holding that the former cannot render a bargain void.88 Although going beyond the statements of most courts, the doctrine enunciated in New Jersey is sustained, it is submitted, by sound reason: "Drunkenness may be insanity, but it is voluntary. It is no excuse from the consequences of crime; why should it be against those of acts affecting property? Sound policy requires that it should not, unless brought about by the other party, or unless it was so total as to be palpable evidence of fraud in the person entering into a contract with one so intoxicated." 89 If an intoxicated person is able to appear to give intelligent assent he should not be allowed to set up his own misconduct to defeat one who has been deceived in dealing with him. Doubtless the reason why such a rule is not more generally expressed in the books is because cases in fact can rarely arise where one dealing with an intoxicated person is unaware of the fact. Insane persons frequently appear to be sane, but persons so far intoxicated as to have lost their intelligence must almost invariably give indication of their condition to any one dealing with them. If, however, we suppose the case of an offer signed in extreme intoxication and sent to some one at a distance, it is submitted that if accepted and certainly if acted on, the intoxicated person should be bound.90

85 Hawkins v. Bono, 4 F. & F. 311; Conley v. Nailor, 118 U. S. 127, 6 S. Ct. 1001, 30 L. Ed. 112; Taylor v. Purell, 60 Ark. 606, 31 8. W. 567; Cook v. Bagnell Timber Co., 78 Ark. 47, 94 S. W. 895; Caulkins c. Fry, 35 Conn. 170; Bates v. Ball, 72 111. 108; Shackelton v. Sebree, 86 111. 616; Watson v. Doyle, 130 111 415, 22 N. . 613; Ryan v. Schutt, 135 111 App. 554; Kuhlman v. Wisben, 129 Iowa, 188, 105 N. W. 445; Glenn p. Martin, 170 Ky. 295, 200 8. W. 450; Wright v. Fisher, 65 Mich. 275, 32 N. W. 605, 8 Am. St Rep. 886; Johns v. Fritchey, 39 Md. 258; Rogers v. Warren, 75 Mo. App. 271; McKeon v. Van Slyck, 223 N. Y. 392, 119 N. E. 851; Spoonheim v. Spoonheim, 14 N. Dak. 380, 104 N. W. 845; French v. French, 8 Ohio, 214, 31 Am. Dec, 441; Buah v. Breinig, 113 Pa. St. 310, 6 Atl. 86, 57 Am. Rep. 469; Reynolds v. Dechaums, 24 Tex. 174, 76 Am. Dec. 101; Houston, etc., R. R. Co. v. Tier-ney, 72 Tex. 312, 12 8. W. 586; Loftus v. Moloney, 89 Va. 576, 16 S. E. 740; Burmnger p. Bank, 67 Wis. 75, 30 N.W. 290, 58 Am. Rep. 848. The rule was applied with considerable strictness in Caulkine v. Fry, 35 Conn. 170, and Johns v. Fritcbey, 39 Md. 258. In the former case the court held that if the drunkard could remember the following morning what be bad done, he was not so far intoxicated as to be legally incapacitated. As expressed in a recent Illinois decision the drunkenness must have been such as to drown reason, memory, and judgment, and to impair the mental faculties to such an extent as to render the party nan com-pos mentis for the time being. Martin v. Harsh, 231 111. 384, 83 N. E. 164,13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1000.

86 Core d. Gibson, 13 M. & W. 623; Matthews v. Baxter, L. R. 8 Ex. 132; Snead v. Scott, 182 Ala. 97, 62 So. 36; Sellers v. Knight, 185 Ala. 90, 64 So. 329; Phelan v. Gardner, 43 Cal. 306; Caulkins v. Fry, 35 Conn. 170; Cumminga v. Henry, 10 Ind. 109; Mansfield v. Watson, 2 Iowa, 111; Glenn p. Martin, 179 Ky. 295, 200 S. W. 456; Johns v. Fritchey, 39 Md. 258; Fobs v. Hildreth, 10 Allen, 76; Carpenter v. Rodgers, 61 Mich. 384, 28 N. W. 156, 1 Am. St. Rep. 595; Newell v. Fisher, 11 Sm. & M. 431, 49 Am. Dec. 66; Broadwater v. Dame, 10 Mo. 277; Van Wyck v. Brasher, 81 N. Y. 260; Baird v. Howard, 51 Ohio St. 57, 36 N. E. 732, 22 L. R. A. 846, 46 Am. St. Rep. 550; Straughan v. Cooper, 41 Old. 515, 139 Pac. 265; Bush v. Breinig, 113 Pa. St. 310, 0 Atl. 86.

87 Taylor v. Purcell, 60 Ark. 606, 31 S. W. 567; Shackelton v. Sebree, 86 111. 016; Berkley v. Cannon, 4 Rich.