Miller v. Miller
Supreme Court of New Jersey
“The conveyance and the release given the following year are attacked, first, on the ground that Mrs. Miller was mentally incompetent. The test is whether she possessed sufficient ability^ at the times she acted, to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and effect of the conveyance and the release. Leick v. Pozniak, 135 N. J. Eq. 67. It is clear that on both occasions Mrs. Miller seemed normal.
Read the full summary
“The conveyance and the release given the following year are attacked, first, on the ground that Mrs. Miller was mentally incompetent. The test is whether she possessed sufficient ability^ at the times she acted, to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and effect of the conveyance and the release. Leick v. Pozniak, 135 N. J. Eq. 67. It is clear that on both occasions Mrs. Miller seemed normal. Probably the dementia made her mind more sluggish and her understanding less clear. But both Mr. Smith and Mr. Curtis, -as well as the parties more directly concerned, were confident she knew…
1Per curiam
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Yice-Chancellor Bigelow filed in the Court of Chancery.
For affirmance■ — The Chiee-Justice, Paekee, Bodine, Donges, Hei-iee, Perskie, Oliphant, Wells, Raeeerty, Dill, McGeehah, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.
2Cited by6 opinions
- In Re Estate of HolcombSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2002
- Blake v. BrennanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1948
- Petruccio v. PetruccioNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1985
- Brooklyn Trust Co. v. PodvinNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
- Capozzi v. CapozziSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1949
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.