Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Wend. 649

Robertson v. Lain

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1839

New York Supreme Court · decided 1839-03-15

This suit was commenced by the service of a declaration on the defendant. On the first day of January last the plaintiff declared on two promissory notes made by the defendant in July, 1838. On a commission out of chancery it was found by inquisition on the 14th September last, that the defendant was incapable of conducting his own affairs in consequence of habitual drunkenness, and that he had been so incapable since the first day of June last.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1839-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 1906

12 state decisions

4018391840185018601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court,

Bronson, J.

¶2The care and custody of persons incapable of conducting their own affairs in consequence of habitual drunkenness, as well as of idiots, lunatics and persons of unsound mind, belong to the chancellor. 2 R. S. 52, § I- If the plaintiff recovers in this action he will not be allowed to touch either the person or the estate of the defendant, but will be obliged to apply to the committee or the court of chancery for the payment of his debt. It is probable that he will then be required to establish the justice of his demand without any reference to the liquidation in this court, and without any allowance for the costs of this suit. The present proceeding is useless, to say the least; and now that the plaintiff has learned the appointment of a committee, he cannot continue the prosecution of the action without the peril of answering for a contempt of the court of chancery. Matter of Heller, 3 Paige, 199. Matter of Hopper, 5 id. 489.

¶3But I must leave the court of chancery to enforce its own jurisdiction. It is no ground for setting aside proceedings at law, that the defendant was a lunatic or otherwise incompetent to manage his own affairs at the time the action was brought, or that he has become so since. Kernot v. Norman, 2 T. R. 390. Nutt v. Verney, 4 id. 121. Anon, 13 Ves. 590. But the plaintiff will do well to consider whether he can safely proceed to judgment, until a guardian or attorney has been appointed for the defendant. Beverley's case, 4 Co. 124. Faulkner v. McClure, 18 Johns. R. 134.

¶4Motion denied.

/19/wend/649 · .json · Public domain