Drunkenness in contract law is treated in almost the same way as insanity. Before adjudication as an habitual drunkard, a person cannot escape his liability on a contract on the mere ground that he was intoxicated when he executed it, unless he can show that at the very moment of execution he was so intoxicated that he was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction.1 Where this degree of intoxication exists, the contract is voidable, even if the intoxication is voluntary and not produced by the adversary party.2 A less degree

1 Matthews v. Baxter, L. R. 8 Ex. 132; Taylor v. Purcell, 60 Ark. 606; 31 S. W. 567; Hale v. Stery, 7 Colo. App. 165; 42 Pac. 598; Watson v. Doyle, 130 111. 415; 22 N. E. 613; Schramm v. O'Connor, 98 111. 539; Bates v. Ball, 72 111. 108; Davidge v. Crandall, 23 111. App. 360; Harbison v. Lemon, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 51; 23 Am. Dec. 376; Willcox v. Jackson, 51 Ia. 208; 1 N. W. 513; Byrne v. Long (Ky.), 15 S. W. 778; Carpenter v. Rodgers, 61 Mich. 384; 1 Am. St. Rep. 595; 28 N. W. 156; Newell v. Fisher, 11 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 431; 49 Am. Dec. 66; Rogers v. Warren, 75 Mo. App. 271; French v. French., 8 Ohio 214; 31 Am. Dec. 441; Bush v. Breinig, 113 Pa. St. 310; 57 Am. Rep. 469; 6 Atl. 86; Birdsong v. Birdsong, 2 Head. (Tenn.) 289; Morris v. Nixon, 7

Humph. (Tenn.) 579; Belcher v. Belcher, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 121; Reynolds v. Dechaums, 24 Tex. 174; 76 Am. Dec. 101; Wells v. Houston, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 629; 57 S. W. 584; Barrett v. Buxton, 2 Aikens (Vt.) 167; 16 Am. Dec. 691; Wiggles-worth v. Steers, 1 H. & M. (Va.) 70; 3 Am. Dec. 602; Loftus v. Ma-loney, 89 Va. 576; 16 S. E. 749. The degree of intoxication has been especially insisted on in Johns v. Fritchey, 39 Md. 258, where the proof was required to be clear and convincing; and in Caulkins v. Fry, 35 Conn. 170, where it was held that one who could remember on the next day that he had made a contract was not drunk enough to escape liability.

2 Bush v. Breinig, 113 Pa. St. 310; 57 Am. Rep. 469; 6 Atl. 86; Barrett v. Buxton, 2 Aikens (Vt.) of intoxication,3 even though causing exhilaration and excitement,4 or preventing him from acting as carefully as if he were sober,5 does not affect his contractual capacity. So where one is often intoxicated, but makes a contract while sober he is bound as absolutely as though he were never drunk.6