Clark v. Caldwell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Cumberland county. Action of debt. James Clark against Samuel Caldwell. On the 19th of September 1331, an inquisition found that Samuel Caldwell was an habitual drunkard; it was filed on the 23d of September 1831. On the 15th of November 1831, a traverse was entered to the finding of the inquest, upon which an issue was joined. On the 30th of August 1833, the finding of the inquest was confirmed, and trustees appointed.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Cumberland county. Action of debt. James Clark against Samuel Caldwell. On the 19th of September 1331, an inquisition found that Samuel Caldwell was an habitual drunkard; it was filed on the 23d of September 1831. On the 15th of November 1831, a traverse was entered to the finding of the inquest, upon which an issue was joined. On the 30th of August 1833, the finding of the inquest was confirmed, and trustees appointed. The question in this case was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover upon a note of the defendant, dated the 23d of May 1832, a period…
1Per curiam
Whatever may have been the law in cases of lunacy at the time of this transaction, the act of 1819 is too explicit in this particular to admit of interpretation: it expressly avoids a drunkard’s contracts, made after the finding of the inquisition. But the inquisition is said not to be found, in contemplation of law, before its final confirmation, where a traverse has been taken. That construction, would accord with neither technical nor popular meaning; for the finding, which is the business of the inquest, is, in the apprehension of all men, a very different thing from the confirmation…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Imhoff v. Witmer's AdministratorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Mitchell v. SpauldingSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Bixler v. GillelandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846
- Ralph v. TaylorSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1912