Commonwealth v. Pitcairn
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 120, Oct. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., April T., 1901, No. 754, on verdict for defendant in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Robert'Pitcairn v. Albert Pitcairn on the traverse of Mary Pitcairn. Traverse of a finding of lunacy.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 120, Oct. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., April T., 1901, No. 754, on verdict for defendant in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Robert'Pitcairn v. Albert Pitcairn on the traverse of Mary Pitcairn. Traverse of a finding of lunacy. Before Fbazeb, P. J. Prom the record it appeared that by an inquisition in lunacy filed on April 22, 1901, Albert Pitcairn was found to be a lunatic without lucid intervals for four years prior to that date. Mary Pitcairn, who was married to the alleged lunatic on August 29, 1897, traversed the inquisition. At the trial of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb,. Justice Fell,
A wife, the validity of whose marriage is affected by an inquisition in lunacy, is a person aggrieved within the meaning of the Act of May 8, 1874, P. L. 122, and has a standing to traverse the finding. Generally the right to traverse extends to persons related to the alleged lunatic by blood or marriage and to strangers interested in his estate : Wolf’s Case, 195 Pa. 438. In Davidson’s Appeal, 170 Pa. 96, the right of a person claiming title under a deed executed by an alleged lunatic to traverse the finding that the lunacy antedated the deed, was sustained. The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gensemer's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Wolf's CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
3Cited by3 opinions
- In the Matter of Grant EdmundsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Commonwealth v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Bailey's Petition, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1925