The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-03-22
RELEASE IS
NOT INVALID.
DesisiOn Of Court In Case Of
Cooney and Wife VS.. Lincoln.
CLAIMS OF The PLAINTIFFS.
Il Was That Mrs. Cooney Was Under To-
fusnce Of 0plates When She Signed.
DEPENDENTS DEMURRER SUSTAINED.
Court Holds Il Is Not Sufficient 10 Avoid Contract
That Person Making II Was Under Influence
Of 0pIass al The Tina.
DEPENDENTS DEMURRER SUSTAINED.

The appellate court i'm a decision in
the case OF Patrick Cooney and wife VS..
/. Marshall Lincoln handed down today
holds that in the absence of fraud. it
Is not enough to avoid a contract that
the person making it should be under
the influence OF opiates and not in the
possession of her full mental powers.
The opinion in the case was written
by Chief Justice Matteson and Is az
follows: This is an action of trespass
on the case to recover damages for in
juries alleged to have been received in
consequence OF the negligence OF the
defendants servants.
The defendants second plea sets up
a general release from the plaintiff to
the defendant for the grievances in the
declaration mentioned. and each and
every one Of them. and all actions,
causes Of action, debts, dues, claims and
demands which the plaintiff had
against the defendant.
ITO this plea the plaintiff replies
among other things, that the release
was obtained from the plaintiff while
she was suffering from the injuries re-
ceived by her in her declaration mem
toned, and while she was under the
influence of opfates and not in the pos
session of her full mental powers, and
While she was incapacitated from
making and executing a legal and va1-
id contract or release.
THE defendant demurs to this repli-
cation on the ground that IL is not al
legged that the defendant had knowledge
that the plaintiff was under the infiu-
ence of opiates, and was not in the
possession OF her full mental powers,
and was incapcitated from making and
executing a legal and valid release.
we think the replication is defective.
The averment that the. plaintiff was in
capactated from making and executing
a valid contract is conclusion of law
rather than a statement Of fact Wheth-
er she was incapacitated depends on the
question whether or not her under
standing had been so impaired by her
sufferings and the influence OF opiates
as to render her incapable of under
standing the nature and effect OF the
release. That her understanding had
been impaired to this extent is not av-
erred In the absence of fraud IL is not
enough to avoid a contract that the
person making it should be under the
influence of opiates and not in the pos
session OF her full mental powers. "A
contract made on these circumstances
Is merely voidable: and if il be fair, ana
has been executed so that the parties
cannot be restored 10 their formed posi-
ton. and be made with one who is
ignorant of the others condition as af-
fected by opiates or lack of mental cap
acity, .t will be binding.
ITO constitute sufficient answer TO
the release, therefore, the replication
should aver either that the plaintiff :
lack of mental capacity at the time Of
making the release was so great as to
render her incapable of understanding
the effect OF the instrument, or, If her
mental incapacity did not go 10 that
extent, that the defendant had notice
Of her mental condition when he pro-
cured the release.
THE demurrer to the third replica
tion to the defendants second plea Is
sustained.
Case remitted TO the common pleas
division for further proceedings"