In re Dey
New Jersey Court of Chancery
A writ de lunático inquirendo was issued to inquire of the lunacy of Runey Dey. By the return, it appears that twenty-three jurors, all that were qualified, sat upon the inquisition, and, by their unanimous finding, declared Runey Dey a lunatic, and that his lunacy had existed for more than eighteen months prior to their finding. On behalf of the lunatic a number of exceptions were filed to the proceedings.
Read the full summary
A writ de lunático inquirendo was issued to inquire of the lunacy of Runey Dey. By the return, it appears that twenty-three jurors, all that were qualified, sat upon the inquisition, and, by their unanimous finding, declared Runey Dey a lunatic, and that his lunacy had existed for more than eighteen months prior to their finding. On behalf of the lunatic a number of exceptions were filed to the proceedings. Sufficient of the case appears in the opinion of the Chancellor to understand the principles involved and settled. Argued at Trenton, May Term, 1852.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
On the petition of Emily Dey, the widow of a deceased son of the alleged lunatic, a writ de lunático inquirendo was issued to inquire of the lunacy of Runey Dey. By the return, it appears that twenty-three jurors, all that were qualified, sat upon the inquisition, and, by their unanimous finding, declared Runey Dey a lunatic, and that his lunacy had existed for more than eighteen months prior to their finding. The alleged lunatic has,,by his counsel, filed several exceptions to the proceedings. I will examine them in their order.
The first exception is, “ For that the said…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hoffman v. KahnNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1935
- In Re HarrisNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
- Sporza v. . German Savings BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1908