Case Name: Jonathan E. Ingersoll v. Jonathan W. Harrison
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1882-04-25
Citations: 48 Mich. 234
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jonathan E. Ingersoll v. Jonathan W. Harrison.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
Jonathan E. Ingersoll v. Jonathan W. Harrison.
Imane wards can be personally served, with summom.
An insane person under guardianship continues liable to suit and to the personal service of summons.
Error to Wayne.
Submitted April 7.
Decided April 25.
Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.
Beversed.
Wilkinson, Post & Wilhmson for appellant.
A court can protect a lunatic’s interests by appointing a guardian ad litem: Johnson v. Pomeroy 31 Ohio St. 247; Gerster v. Hilbert 38 Wis. 612; Sturges v. Longworth 1 Ohio St. 554; lunatics can employ attorneys: Bac. Ab. tit. “ Ideots and Lunaticks; ” Stigers v. Brent 50 Md. 214; and can be arrested on capias like sane persons: Kernot v. Norman 2 Term 390; Nutt v. Verney 4 Term 121; Steel v. Alan 2 B. & P. 362; Exp. Leighton 14 Mass. 206; courts treat actions in which they are parties like other cases: Hines v. Potts 56 Miss. 346; Holmes v. Service 15 C. B. 293; Anon. 13 Ves. 590; Johnson v. Pomeroy 31 Ohio St. 247; Blake v. Cooper 11 C. B. 679.
Moore db Moore for appellee.

Opinion:
Grates, C. J.
The plaintiff sued defendant by summons personally served, whereupon Sarah J. Harrison, appearing as defendant's guardian, joined with him in pleading in abatement of the service that at the time of its occurrence he was under guardianship as an insane person. The plaintiff demurred, but the court sustained the plea and quashed both service and process.
The sole question raised is whether the existence of the guardianship took away the defendant's legal capacity to be served with the summons, and we think it did not. He continued liable to suits and liable to notification of their institution. Sternbergh v. Schoolcraft 2 Barb. 153, and authorities cited; Crippen v. Culver 13 Barb. 424. See, also, Bush v. Pettibone 4 Comst. 300; Ibbotson v. Lord Galway 6 Term 133; Cock v. Bell 13 East 355.
The judgment is reversed with costs and the plaintiff will have judgment on the demurrer, that the plea is overruled, and the cause will be remanded to be proceeded in according to law.
The other Justices concurred.