In re Russell
New York Court of Chancery
This case came before the chancellor upon an inquisition finding P. Russell to be a lunatic, and upon the petition of one of his sons, on whose application the commission was issued, to have a committee of his person and estate appointed. A counter application was made on the part of Russell to have the inquisition set aside for irregularity, or for leave to traverse, or for a feigned issue to try the question of lunacy.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
There is no irregularity in the proceedings, which can justify the court in setting aside the inquisition on that ground. The alleged lunatic, except in cases of confirmed and dangerous madness, to be judged of and provided for by the court, in the order for the commission, is entitled to reasonable notice of the time and place of the execution of the commission, and a reasonable time to produce his wi fnesses before the jury, to rebut the charge of lunacy. It is not necessary, however, that the notice should be served on him personally, where it is evident he keeps out of the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Beaubien v. CicotteMichigan Supreme Court · 1864
- Strickland v. PeacockSupreme Court of Georgia · 1953
- Woodworth v. EdwardsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1847
- De Hart v. ConditSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1893
- Hinchman v. RichiePhiladelphia Court of Nisi Prius · 1849
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.