Intoxicated Persons.

The capacity of a party to contract and the validity of the contract are not affected by the party's being drunk at the time of making the contract as long as the party knew that a contract was being made. The fact that the contract was foolish and would not have been made if sober does not make the contract voidable unless it can be shown that the other party purposely caused the person to become drunk in order to induce the making of the contract.

If the degree of intoxication is such that a person does not know that a contract is being made, the contract is voidable by that person. The situa­tion is the same as though the person were so insane at the time as to not know what was being done. Upon becoming sober, the person may avoid or rescind the contract. An unreasonable delay in taking steps to set aside a known contract entered into while intoxicated, however, may bar the intoxi­cated person from asserting this right.

Aliens.

An alien is a national or subject of a foreign country. Originally aliens were subject to many disabilities. These have been removed in most instances by treaty between the United States and the foreign country, under which each nation agrees to give certain rights to the citizens of the other. Generally an alien's right to make a contract is recognized.

If this country is at war with a nation of which an alien is a subject, the alien is called an enemy alien without regard to whether the alien is actu­ally assisting that country in the prosecution of the war. An enemy alien is denied the right to make new contracts or to sue on existing ones, but if sued on an existing contract, may defend the action. A contract made by an enemy alien, even though made before the war began, will at least be suspended during the war. In some instances, if the contract calls for continuing services or performance, the war terminates the contract.

Married Women.

At common law a married woman could not make a binding con­tract. The common-law disability of a married woman has almost been abol­ished by statute in practically all the states.' There are still a few restrictions in some jurisdictions. It is probable that these will disappear in the near future.

FACTS:

An Alabama statute provided that a married woman could not sell her land without the consent of her husband. Montgomery made a contract to sell to Peddy land owned by her. Montgomery's husband did not consent thereto. Montgomery did not perform the contract and was sued by Peddy. The defense was raised that the contract was void and could not be enforced because of the statute. Peddy claimed that the statute was unconstitutional.

DECISION:

The statute was unconstitutional. Con­stitutions, both federal and state, guarantee all persons the equal protection of the law. Married women are denied this equal protection when they are treated differently than married men and unmarried females. The fact that such unequal treatment had once been regarded as proper does not justify its modern continuation. [Peddy v