In re Vanauken
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On the 20th of April, 1854, a commission, in the nature of a writ de lunático inqmrendo, issued out of this court, directed to James Lain, Moses Dunning, and David Thompson, esquires, directing them to inquire into the alleged lunacy of Daniel Vanauken.
Read the full summary
On the 20th of April, 1854, a commission, in the nature of a writ de lunático inqmrendo, issued out of this court, directed to James Lain, Moses Dunning, and David Thompson, esquires, directing them to inquire into the alleged lunacy of Daniel Vanauken. On the 13th of May, the commission was executed, and the jury found that the said Daniel Vanauken was, at the time of taking the inquisition, a lunatic and of unsound mind, and that he had been in the same state of lunacy for the space of three years then last past. Twenty-one jurors were sworn. Twenty signed the return. On the 9th of June,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The petitioner, who is the alleged lunatic, asks that the inquisition taken may be set aside, and a new commission issued; or in case this should be refused, that he may be permitted to traverse the inquisition.
There are several reasons assigned in the petition for setting aside the inquisition. I will examine them briefly in their order.
First. Because there was not sufficient notice given to *190the petitioner of the time and place of executing the commission.
The alleged lunatic has a right to be present at the execution of the commission, to make his defence by himself or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re ChristieNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re S.M.Montana Supreme Court · 2017
- In Re OswaldNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942
- Matter of S.M.Montana Supreme Court · 2017
- Sporza v. . German Savings BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1908