In re Russell

New York Court of Chancery

In re Russell

6 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 2, 1846 N.Y. LEXIS 186

DecidedApril 7, 1846

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 2 (In re Russell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Russell, 6 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 2, 1846 N.Y. LEXIS 186 (N.Y. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

In this case, a feigned issue was awarded to try the question whether Russell was a lunatic and of unsound mind, so as to be incapable of governing himself and managing his property and affairs. The jury, instead of finding a verdict either for the plaintiff or the defendant, specially found him to be a lunatic, but not to be of unsound mind, so as to be mentally incapable of governing himseif or managing his property and affairs. The counsel for the alleged lunatic applied, upon this verdict, for an order to discharge the proceedings against him ; and the petitioner for the commission applied for the appointment of a permanent committee of the person and estate ; or for a new trial of the feigned issue.

The chancellor stated that the verdict of the jury was so imperfect that it was impossible for the court to ascertain what they intended to decide upon the question of lunacy.

He therefore directed a new trial, to be had before the circuit court of Rensselaer county, upon an amended issue; with liberty to either party to notice the same for trial.

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

In this case, a feigned issue was awarded to try the question whether Russell was a lunatic and of unsound mind, so as to be incapable of governing himself and managing his property and affairs. The jury, instead of finding a verdict either for the plaintiff or the defendant, specially found him to be a lunatic, but not to be of unsound mind, so as to be mentally incapable of governing himseif or managing his property and affairs. The counsel for the alleged lunatic applied, upon this verdict, for an order to discharge the proceedings against him ; and the petitioner for the commission applied for the appointment of a permanent committee of the person and estate ; or for a new trial of the feigned issue.

The chancellor stated that the verdict of the jury was so imperfect that it was impossible for the court to ascertain what they intended to decide upon the question of lunacy.

He therefore directed a new trial, to be had before the circuit court of Rensselaer county, upon an amended issue; with liberty to either party to notice the same for trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 2, 1846 N.Y. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-russell-nychanct-1846.