Ortley & Baker v. Messere
New York Court of Chancery
BILL to set aside acts done by the lunatic while incoin- ApnZ ilk. petent. General demurrer, for that the lunatic was not a party plaintiff, and because the bill contained no ground for a decree.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
It is not necessary for the lunatic herself to be a party plaintiff with her committee, to set aside an act done by her while she was under mental imbecility. The same objection was made in the case of the Attorney-General on behalf of Smith, a lunatic, v. Parkhurst, (1 Ch. Cas. 112.) and overruled by the Lord Keeper. T*he suit, in that case, was for relief against an act done by the lunatic while a lunatic. In another case,, (Ridler v. Ridler, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 279.) the bill was by the lunatic and his committee to sét aside a settlement made by him while a lunatic, and a…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Lombard v. MorseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Covington v. NeftzgerIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Penington ex rel. Thompson v. ThompsonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1880
- Fields v. FowlerNew York Supreme Court · 1874
- Overton v. President & Board of Trustees of the Village of OleanNew York Supreme Court · 1885
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.