In re Weitzel
District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
This was an involuntary petition, and-on the return day of the order to show cause, the respondent appeared by his guardian, and filed an answer, stating that at the time of filing the petition he was insane, and under guardianship from the county court of Crawford county, and also, that he was insane at the time the several acts of bankruptcy are charged to have been committed.
1Opinion of the Court
HOPKINS, District Judge.
A motion in the nature of a demurrer has been submitted, involving the questions: First, can a party under guardianship as a lunatic be adjudged a bankrupt against the consent of his guardian? and, second, can an insane person commit an act of bankruptcy?
The first is jurisdictional, ánd involves the power of courts, on the application of creditors, to proceed against such parties. It is not new, and may be determined by the authorities. Freem. Judgm. § 152, says: “By a concurrence of judicial authority, lunatics are held to be within the jurisdiction of the courts.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Crippen v. CulverNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Sternbergh v. SchoolcraftNew York Supreme Court · 1848
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re L. Stein & Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1904
- In Re MurrayUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1996
- In re BurkaDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1901