36 Ala. 616
Decided June 15, 1860
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1860-06-15
In the matter of John Carmichael, on tbe petition of Daniel Carmichael, bis brother, to have him declared non compos mentis. “On the trial before tbe jury,” as the bill of exceptions states, “the petitioner introduced a witness who testified, that he had known the defendant for fourteen or fifteen years, and had known him well for five or six years last past; that he had not seen him for five or six years prior to 1852, the defendant having been absent from the State; that…
Relies on Stubbs v. Houston · Walker v. Walker's · Hall v. Goodson
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1860-06-15
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1957
5 state decisions
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 →
¶1The witness should not have been allowed to testify that, in his opinion, John E. Carmichael was incompetent to manage his affairs and take care of himself. Walker v. Walker, 34 Ala. 469 ; Hall v. Goodson, 32 Ala. 277; Stubbs v. Houston, 33 Ala. 555.
¶2Reversed and remanded.