Appeal of Halsey

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Appeal of Halsey

13 A. 934, 120 Pa. 209, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 473

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 30, 1888

DocketNo. 116

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 13 A. 934 (Appeal of Halsey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Appeal of Halsey, 13 A. 934, 120 Pa. 209, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 473 (Pa. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion,

Mr. Chief Justice Gordon :

The assignments of error in this case cannot be sustained. Philip F. Stier was but the officer of the Court of Common Pleas, and all he did was done under the order and sanction of that court; neither can he be punished for its errors if, indeed, any such there were. The commission of lunacy, acting in accordance with the law of the commonwealth, not only found the fact of Eh Siegfried’s unsoundness of mind, but also the persons, nominatim, composing his family, and the maintenance ordered was for this lunatic and this his family. Whether that family was legitimate or illegitimate was of no consequence to Stier, nor was it his business to ascertain whether Siegfried had another family with which he had lived years before. His business was to obey the orders of his legal superior, and, having done so, he is entitled to protection. Nor is he to be limited to that which he lawfully expended in obedience to said orders, but he must also have his reasonable commissions. What if this family was illegitimate ? The children, at least, were those of Siegfried, and could not be turned out to starve just because they were bastards. Had, therefore, the court, from the first, been informed of all the particulars, it could have done nothing but that which it did do ; that is, order the committee to provide for the lunatic and the family which he then had about him: • Hambleton’s Appeal, 102 Pa. 50.

The decree is affirmed, and the appeal dismissed at the costs of appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion,

Mr. Chief Justice Gordon :

The assignments of error in this case cannot be sustained. Philip F. Stier was but the officer of the Court of Common Pleas, and all he did was done under the order and sanction of that court; neither can he be punished for its errors if, indeed, any such there were. The commission of lunacy, acting in accordance with the law of the commonwealth, not only found the fact of Eh Siegfried’s unsoundness of mind, but also the persons, nominatim, composing his family, and the maintenance ordered was for this lunatic and this his family. Whether that family was legitimate or illegitimate was of no consequence to Stier, nor was it his business to ascertain whether Siegfried had another family with which he had lived years before. His business was to obey the orders of his legal superior, and, having done so, he is entitled to protection. Nor is he to be limited to that which he lawfully expended in obedience to said orders, but he must also have his reasonable commissions. What if this family was illegitimate ? The children, at least, were those of Siegfried, and could not be turned out to starve just because they were bastards. Had, therefore, the court, from the first, been informed of all the particulars, it could have done nothing but that which it did do ; that is, order the committee to provide for the lunatic and the family which he then had about him: • Hambleton’s Appeal, 102 Pa. 50.

The decree is affirmed, and the appeal dismissed at the costs of appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A. 934, 120 Pa. 209, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-halsey-pa-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack