Larmon v. Noyes

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas

Larmon v. Noyes

41 Pa. D. & C. 471, 1941 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 333

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County

DecidedJanuary 28, 1941

Docketno. 12

StatusPublished

This text of 41 Pa. D. & C. 471 (Larmon v. Noyes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Larmon v. Noyes, 41 Pa. D. & C. 471, 1941 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Dannehower, J.,

On October 24, 1940, Hiram Gates Larmon was committed to the Norris-town State Hospital upon the application of his wife and affidavits of two physicians, under The Mental Health [472]*472Act of July 11, 1923, P. L. 998, sec. 302, as amended by the Act of May 28, 1937, P. L. 973, sec. 1, 50 PS §42. He has filed a writ of habeas corpus to determine whether he is being legally detained as a mental patient. . . .

It is contended, because the justice of the peace failed to cross out the word “sworn” and the application read “duly sworn affirmed before me”, and that committing doctors affirmed over the telephone, that such was insufficient under the law. The testimony shows that both doctors and their signatures are well known to the magistrate who affirmed them over the telephone and recognized their voices, and that he neglected to cross out the word “sworn” on the printed form. Such affirmations are legal and sufficient, under these circumstances, to meet the requirements of said act. . . .

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

Dannehower, J.,

On October 24, 1940, Hiram Gates Larmon was committed to the Norris-town State Hospital upon the application of his wife and affidavits of two physicians, under The Mental Health [472]*472Act of July 11, 1923, P. L. 998, sec. 302, as amended by the Act of May 28, 1937, P. L. 973, sec. 1, 50 PS §42. He has filed a writ of habeas corpus to determine whether he is being legally detained as a mental patient. . . .

It is contended, because the justice of the peace failed to cross out the word “sworn” and the application read “duly sworn affirmed before me”, and that committing doctors affirmed over the telephone, that such was insufficient under the law. The testimony shows that both doctors and their signatures are well known to the magistrate who affirmed them over the telephone and recognized their voices, and that he neglected to cross out the word “sworn” on the printed form. Such affirmations are legal and sufficient, under these circumstances, to meet the requirements of said act. . . .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Pa. D. & C. 471, 1941 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larmon-v-noyes-pactcomplmontgo-1941.