In re the alleged lunacy of Perrine
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On motion to set aside inquisition.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The inquisition in this case is signed by nineteen of the twenty-four jurors. They find that the alleged lunatic “is of sound mind, and is capable of controlling her property by her own selection of a proper person to act for her.” The other five certify that she is “ not of sufficient understanding to enable her to manage her property.” She is about sixty-five years old and has never been married. The commissioners have made a report concerning her condition. They say that she is not an idiot or lunatic in the popular sense of the words; that she has been a deaf mute ever…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In re BarkerNew York Court of Chancery · 1816
- Brower v. FisherNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
3Cited by6 opinions
- East Paterson v. KarkusNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1945
- Warker v. WarkerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
- Webb v. WebbNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1924
- In re A.A.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2005
- In Re AANew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2005
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.