Pickett v. Sutter (1855) · DecisionDepot

Pickett v. Sutter

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1855Published

Before: Heydenfeldt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A contract is only voidable due to intoxication if the impairment is sufficient to seriously affect the party's reasoning faculties at the time of execution. However, a verdict will not be disturbed on appeal if there is any evidence supporting the jury's findings on other grounds, such as fraud.

Issues

Whether the trial court's instruction regarding intoxication as a basis for avoiding a contract was accurate.
Whether the appellate court may disturb a jury verdict based on the weight of evidence.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is not alone the influence of liquor which avoids a contract, but it must be shown to exist to such extent as to seriously impair the reasoning faculties at the time of the contract.”

“it is not our province to determine facts from the weight of evidence, and consequently we cannot disturb the verdict.”

Synopsis

It is not alone the influence of liquor which avoids a contract, hut it must be shown to exist to such extent,as to seriously impair the reasoning faculties a$ the time of the contract.

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.

One of the charges of the District Court is obnoxious to the charge of inaccuracy. It is not alone the influence of liquor which avoids a contract, but it must be shown to exist to such extent as to seriously impair the reasoning faculties at the time of the contract.

[413]From the evidence, however, this charge could have had no influence upon the determination of the jury. The whole transaction was assailed on the ground of fraud, and circumvention, and there was no proof of the defendant’s drunkenness. The jury must have formed their conclusions upon the hypothesis of unfairness in the conduct of the plaintiff, and however slight and meager we may deem the evidence tending to show it, yet it is not our province to determine facts from the weight of evidence, and consequently we cannot disturb the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Pickett v. Sutter

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief