Caulkins v. Fry
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit, on a negotiable note, by a bona fide holder against the maker, reserved by the Superior Court on facts found by an auditor, for the advice of this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
This is an action by the indorsee against the maker of a negotiable promissory note. The defense is that the defendant, when he signed the note, was intoxicated. When this cause alone is relied upon as a defense, we suppose it is incumbent upon the party to show what the books term excessive or complete drunkenness. A less degree of intoxication will suffice, where it appears that the intoxication was induced by the opposite party, or that he knowingly took advantage of it to obtain a better bargain. In 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 151, it is stated thus: “ Drunkenness is a species of…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Carpenter v. RodgersMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Cavender v. WaddinghamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1878
- Cook v. Bagnell Timber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Green v. GunstenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Hale v. SteryColorado Court of Appeals · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.