Sec. 910. Effect Of Drugs
Description
This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Sec. 910. Effect Of Drugs
The same principles apply to the mental effects of morphine,1 or of ana?sthetics,2 as to the use of alcohol though such effect is not technically drunkenness. Thus a release given by one who was so under the influence of opiates that he did not know what he was doing is voidable.3 He may thereafter avoid4 or ratify5 such release. Thus one who agreed to release a railroad from liability for accidents for two hundred forty dollars and his hospital bills has affirmed such contract even if he was under the influence of opiates when he entered into it, by keeping the money after recovering his senses, and remaining at the hospital for several weeks at the company's expense.6 It Lus been held in some courts that ratification by one who does not know that he has the right in law to avoid is not binding.7 But one who understands the nature of the transaction cannot avoid a contract though "not in possession of full mental powers."8 If the adversary party does not know of the condition of the party seeking relief, no rescission can be had unless such adversary party can be placed in statu quo.9
283; Wait v. Maxwell, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 217; 16 Am. Dec. 391; Wadsworth v. Sharpsteen, 8 N. Y. 388; 59 Am. Dec. 499; Clark v. Caldwell, 6 Watts (Pa.) 139.
3 Jones v. Semple, 91 Ala. 182; 8 So. 557.
4 Pinkston v. Semple, 92 Ala. 564; 9 So. 329.
5 Black's Appeal, 132 Pa. St. 134; 19 Atl. 31.
6 Cockrill v. Cockrill, 92 Fed. 811; 79 Fed. 143.
1 Swank v. Swank, 37 Or. 439; 61 Pac. 846.
2 Gibson v. R. R. Co., 164 Pa. St. 142; 44 Am. St. Rep. 586; 30 Atl. 308.
90
3 Union Pacific Ry. v. Harris, 158 U. S. 326 (effect of morphine and whiskey given for medicinal purposes) ; Chicago, etc., R. R. v. Doyle, 18 Kan. 58; Buford v. R. R., 82 Ky. 286; Alabama, etc., Ry. v. Jones, 73 Miss. 110; 55 Am. St. Rep. 488; 19 So. 105; Gibson v. R. R., 164 Pa. St. 142; 44 Am. St. Rep. 586; 30 Atl. 308 (effect of chloroform and ether).
4 Alabama, etc., Ry. v. Jones, 73 Miss. 110; 55 Am. St. Rep. 488; 19 So. 105.
5 Gibson v. R. R., 164 Pa. St. 142; 44 Am. St. Rep. 586; 30 Atl. 308.
6 Gibson v. R. R., 164 Pa. St. 142; 44 Am. St. Rep. 586; 30 Atl. 308.
7 Alabama, etc., Ry. v. Jones, 73 Miss. 110; 55 Am. St. Rep. 488; 19 So. 105.
8 Cooney v. Lincoln, 21 K. I. 246; 79 Am. St. Rep. 799; 42 Atl. 867.
9 Cooney v. Lincoln, 2Y R. I. 246; 79 Am. St. Rep. 799; 42 Atl. 867.
Continue to:
My Books
