In re Harris
Citations
- 7 Del. Ch. 42
Syllabus
<p>Lunatics — jurisdiction of Chancery over; Restraining order — over property and person of alleged lunatic during interval between issuance and execution of lunacy proceedings; Petition for restraining order over alleged lunatic’s property — practice in.</p> <p>1. The Court of Chancery in this State, by special legislative grant, has jurisdiction of alleged lunatics from the very inception of the process by which their sanity or insanity is finally and definitively ascertained; and has the power to suspend or supersede the control of the supposed insane person over his property during the interim between the granting and the execution of the writ of insanity.</p> <p>2. During lunacy proceedings, the presumption of sanity must remain in abejance so far as it relates to the temporary restraint of the personal liberty and property of the supposed insane person.</p> <p>3. When petitioned to restrain a supposed insane person from control over his property during pendency of lunacy proceedings, the Court of Chancery should not examine into1 the case more than is necessary to move‘it to grant the order for the protection of the alleged lunatic’s person and estate; and, therefore, counter affidavits, negativing the allegations contained in the sworn' statements of the petitioner, will not be heard.</p> <p>4. The petition for a restraining order is but collateral to the proceedings in lunacy, and dependent upon, it for its foundation, and the affidavits upon which the lunacy proceedings are founded may -be used in aid of this application.</p> <p>5. The statement in the petition for a restraining order during the pendency of lunacy proceedings, supported by affidavit, that respondent has parted with large sums of money without receiving a visible equivalent therefor, will prevail against an answer which denies the respondent’s mental incapacity, and his being under the influence of any persons for any purpose whatever, but does not specifically deny that statement in the pe
Judges: Wolcott
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- In Re MarkelSupreme Court of Delaware· 1969-05-14· cited 27×
- In re duPontCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1963-10-16· cited 21×
- Poole v. Newark Trust Co.Superior Court of Delaware· 1939-07-28· cited 14×
- Bumpus v. FrenchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1901-05-23· cited 10×
- Equitable Trust Co. v. Union National BankCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1941-02-14· cited 8×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.