Many jurisdictions provide for a proceeding resembling an inquisition in lunacy, by which one who is given over to constant indulgence in alcoholic stimulants whereby intoxication is produced, may be adjudged an habitual drunkard and placed under guardianship.1 The effect of such adjudication upon contractual capacity depends upon the provisions of the statutes controlling. In general all contracts, conveyances and the like made after such adjudication are void.2 Under the Alabama statute this adjudication is solely for the preservation of the

8 Baird v. Howard, 51 O. S. 57; 46 Am. St. Rep. 550; 22 L. R. A. 846; 36 N. E. 732.

1 Joest v. Williams, 42 Ind. 565; 13 Am. Rep. 377.

2 Thackrah v. Haas, 119 U. S. 499.

3 Haneklau v. Felchlin, 57 Mo. App. 602.

1 Menkins v. Lightner, 18 111. 282; Brockway v. Jewell, 52 0. S. 187; 39 N. E. 470.

2 Pinkston v. Semple, 92 Ala. 564; 9 So. 329; Redden v. Baker, 86 Ind. 191; Devin v. Scott, 34 Ind. 67; Pearl v. McDowell, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 658; 20 Am. Dec. 199; Leonard v. Leonard, 14 Pick. (Mass.) estate described in the bill filed for the adjudication. Over property not therein described, the drunkard has full power ;3 over property described, he has no power even with the consent of his trustee.4 But in a case where A was found on inquisition to be an habitual drunkard and subsequently carried on his business in the ordinary manner, and B paid a debt to A, taking A's receipt therefor, such receipt was held to discharge B's debt.5 Upon the discharge of the guardian and termination of the guardianship, contractual capacity is restored so that a conveyance the next day is valid; and is not invalidated by a subsequent re-adjudication.6