Hehn v. Hehn

23 Pa. 415, 1854 Pa. LEXIS 119
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 1, 1854·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Knox, J.

One who voluntarily expends money in the support of a lunatic, cannot recover for such expenditure, either against the committee or the lunatic. There must be a contract, either express or implied, upon which to found the action. One in the custody of the law, as a lunatic, cannot make an exjoress contract, and the law will imply none.

By the 20th section of the Act of 1836, relating to lunatics and habitual drunkards, the committee may expend the income of a lunatic’s estate for the purposes of maintenance, but if more is required it can only be had upon .application to the Court of Common Pleas.

The rejected evidence in the case before us would not, if received, have proved an express contract; and from the testimony of John Eckert, the most that the jury could have been permitted [417] to find was, that the allowance made in 1834 was to be continued during the time that the lunátic remained with Daniel Hehn, the defendant. This was allowed him, and beyond it he had no legal claim.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hehn v. Hehn, 23 Pa. 415, 1854 Pa. LEXIS 119 (Pa. 1854).

23 Pa. 415 (Hehn v. Hehn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Morse
9 Pa. D. & C. 41 (Susquehanna County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1926)
Appeal of Breneman
15 A. 650 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1888)
Leigh v. Linthecum
30 Tex. 100 (Texas Supreme Court, 1867)