Stephens v. Marshall
New York Supreme Court
Appeal by Henry Marshall and George Caulfield, a committee of Thomas Stephens, from an order of the Special Term, made after certain exceptions taken by said Marshall and Caulfield to the report of a referee, made on an accounting of said Marshall and Caulfield, as the committee of said Stephens, as an habitual drunkard. February, 1873, Stephens was adjudged an habitual drunkard, and the appellants were appointed his committee.
Read the full summary
Appeal by Henry Marshall and George Caulfield, a committee of Thomas Stephens, from an order of the Special Term, made after certain exceptions taken by said Marshall and Caulfield to the report of a referee, made on an accounting of said Marshall and Caulfield, as the committee of said Stephens, as an habitual drunkard. February, 1873, Stephens was adjudged an habitual drunkard, and the appellants were appointed his committee. October 3, 1877, an order was made adjudging the reformation" of said Stephens, superseding the inquisition, etc., and directing his committee to deliver to him his…
1Opinion of the Court
Barrett, J.:
In the main we concur in all the conclusions arrived at by the Special Term. Not a penny should have been allowed to the inebriate for spending money. What he needed ought to have been purchased for him. All proper recreation could have been provided without intrusting him with the means of indulging his diseased appetite. The spending money was, in fact, a downright temptation to him. We do not look upon this as a mere error of judgment upon the part of the committee. It was, to say the least, gross negligence, not far removed from the line of bad faith. It exhibited a reckless…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re CarterNew York Court of Chancery · 1831