Legal Opinion

In re the alleged lunacy of Perrine

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided May 15, 1886PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. In re BarkerNew York Court of Chancery · 1816
  2. Brower v. FisherNew York Court of Chancery · 1820

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. East Paterson v. KarkusNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1945
  2. Warker v. WarkerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
  3. Webb v. WebbNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1924
  4. In re A.A.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2005
  5. In Re AANew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2005

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API