Legal Opinion

In re Stenton

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1907PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Application for an order directing the former attorney of an incompetent person to deliver certain hooks and papers to her committee.

1Opinion of the Court

Leventritt, J".

An incompetent person, prior to judicial declaration to that effect, has the right to employ an attorney. At most such a contract is voidable as any other contract of an insane person before the fact has been judicially determined. Blinn v. Schwarz, 177 N. Y. 252. Unless it is shown that some advantage was taken of the principal’s infirmity it would seem that the right to employ an attorney stands, perhaps, on a securer footing than other contracts. And this is so from the very necessities of the case. Before the court has taken unto itself the custody of the incompetent’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Blinn v. . SchwarzNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
  2. In re HopperNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
  3. Grant v. HumbertAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
  4. In re LarnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Sullivan v. DunneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  2. In re StentonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912

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

Powered by the Exa API