Van Horn v. Persinger
215 S.W. 930, 1919 Mo. App. LEXIS 113, 202 Mo. App. 236 (1919)
Rule of Law:
A contract for the sale of property made by an individual so intoxicated as to be bereft of understanding is voidable, and the individual is not required to restore consideration received if that consideration was lost or squandered while they were incapacitated.
Facts:
- The Defendant owned a barber shop which he sold to the Plaintiff for $650 on September 1, 1918.
- Shortly after his purchase, the Plaintiff became a "helpless drunkard."
- The Defendant claimed to have bought the barber shop back from the Plaintiff for $150 and by assuming a $78 debt owed by the Plaintiff.
- At the time the Defendant claimed to repurchase the shop, the Plaintiff was so intoxicated he was too far gone to be aware of what he was doing.
- Upon regaining his capacity for business, the Plaintiff found the Defendant in possession of the barber shop, claiming ownership.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff initiated an action in replevin in justice court (court of first instance) seeking to recover the barber shop tools and implements from the Defendant.
- The justice court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.
- Defendant appealed the justice court's judgment to the circuit court (intermediate appellate court).
- The circuit court affirmed the justice court's decision, ruling in favor of the Plaintiff.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual who enters into a contract while so severely intoxicated as to lack understanding need to restore the consideration received for the contract to be deemed voidable, if that consideration was lost or squandered while they were incapacitated?
Opinions:
Majority - ELLISON, P. J.
Yes, an individual who enters into a contract while so severely intoxicated as to lack understanding is not required to restore the consideration received if that consideration was lost or squandered while they were incapacitated. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that if a plaintiff was so drunk at the time of an alleged sale that he was "bereft of understanding and incapable of caring for himself," then the sale was "of no effect" and transferred no right of property or possession as against the plaintiff. While acknowledging the general rule that one should return consideration upon regaining senses to avoid a contract made while intoxicated (citing Eaton v. Perry), the court established a crucial qualification: restoration is not required if the consideration passed from the incapacitated person while they were incapable of knowing what became of it, making restoration impossible. The court analogized incapable drunkards to infants, noting that infants are not required to restore consideration if they have lost or squandered it before reaching majority (citing Craig v. Van Bibber and other cases). This qualification ensures that the protective purpose of the law is not defeated by an impossible restoration requirement when the loss is directly attributable to the very incapacity the law seeks to protect.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the equitable principles governing contract avoidance due to extreme intoxication. It ensures that the protective intent of allowing such contracts to be voidable is not negated by an impossible restoration requirement, particularly when the consideration was dissipated while the individual was still incapacitated. By drawing a direct parallel between incapacitated drunkards and infants in the context of contract repudiation, the court strengthens legal protections for vulnerable individuals. This precedent is crucial for future cases involving impaired persons, allowing them to argue against the necessity of restoration when consideration is unavailable due to their impairment.
