Lexplug logoLexplug

McNee v. McNee

Nevada Supreme Court
1925 Nev. LEXIS 42, 237 P. 534, 49 Nev. 90 (1925)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A marriage may be annulled for want of understanding if one party, due to intoxication at the time of the ceremony, was incapable of rationally assenting to the marriage contract. Evidence of a party's state of intoxication shortly before and shortly after the ceremony is material evidence that can be used to determine their mental capacity at the precise time of the marriage.


Facts:

  • Plaintiff McNee and Defendant had been dating for several months, during which Plaintiff claimed he was frequently intoxicated in her company.
  • On the night of April 21, 1921, the couple drank a bottle of Scotch whisky together at the London Hunt Club.
  • A club steward drove the couple back to town at 1:30 a.m. on April 22, testifying that Plaintiff was drunk, dazed, and stupid.
  • Around noon on April 22, 1921, Plaintiff and Defendant participated in a marriage ceremony in Ingersoll, Ontario.
  • Plaintiff drove the car to Ingersoll for the ceremony and back to London afterward.
  • Shortly after the ceremony, Plaintiff was observed by his three brothers, an accountant, and a solicitor, all of whom testified that he was in a drunken, stupid condition and smelled strongly of liquor.
  • Plaintiff testified he had only a 'dim recollection' of the ceremony and had no intention of marrying the Defendant.
  • The parties never cohabitated following the marriage ceremony.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiff initiated an action in the trial court to obtain an annulment of his marriage to the Defendant.
  • The complaint alleged two causes of action: want of understanding due to intoxication and fraudulent persuasion.
  • The action was tried before the court without a jury.
  • Plaintiff presented evidence only on the intoxication cause of action.
  • The trial court found for the Plaintiff, concluding he was incapable of assenting to the marriage, and issued a judgment annulling the marriage.
  • The Defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment and the trial court's order denying her motion for a new trial to the present appellate court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is there substantial evidence to support a trial court's finding that a party's intoxication at the time of a marriage ceremony rendered him incapable of assenting to the marriage, thereby justifying an annulment?


Opinions:

Majority - Not Specified

Yes. There is substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that the plaintiff's intoxication rendered him incapable of assenting to the marriage. The appellate court's duty is not to re-weigh conflicting evidence but to determine if there was any evidence upon which the trial court could have reasonably reached its conclusion. The statutory test for annulment is a 'want of understanding' making a party 'incapable of assenting.' Plaintiff's own testimony that the ceremony was a 'haze,' combined with corroborated testimony from multiple witnesses about his extreme intoxication shortly before and after the event, constitutes substantial evidence. This circumstantial evidence is material to inferring his mental state at the time of the ceremony. The trial court was entitled to find this evidence credible and base its judgment upon it, and the appellate court will not disturb that finding.


Dissenting - Not Specified


Concurring - Not Specified



Analysis:

This case clarifies the evidentiary requirements for annulling a marriage on the grounds of intoxication. It establishes that circumstantial evidence, specifically testimony about a person's condition shortly before and after the ceremony, is highly relevant and can be sufficient to infer a lack of capacity at the exact moment of assent. The decision also strongly reinforces the principle of appellate deference to trial court findings of fact, particularly when witness credibility is central to the dispute. It affirms that as long as there is 'substantial evidence' to support the lower court's conclusion, an appellate court will not overturn it even if substantial contrary evidence exists.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query McNee v. McNee (1925) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for McNee v. McNee