Case Name: In the Case of JOHN GEST, a Lunatic
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1823-04-11
Citations: 9 Serg. & Rawle 317
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Case of JOHN GEST, a Lunatic.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 9
Pages: 317–318

Head Matter:
[Philadelphia,
April 11, 1823.]
In the Case of JOHN GEST, a Lunatic.
IN ERROR.
I7o wi'it of error lies oh an inquest, finding a person to be a lunatic, returned to the Court of Common Pleas.
John Gest, was found to be a lunatic, by an inquest held by order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, upon which a writ of error issued from this court.
Dillingham moved to quash the writ of error.
The court called on Edwards and Tilghm'an to support the writ, who cited Queen v. Paty, Salle 504, that a writ of error is grant-able ex debitó justitise, except only in treason or felony. In The Commonwealth y. The Judges of the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, 3 Binn. 273, and Beale v. Dougherty; lb'. 432, it was held, that a writ of error lies on the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, dismissing an appeal from the judgment of an alderman. Blackstone, in his Commentaries, Vol. 3, p. 427, is in point. The previous proceedings, says he, on the commission to inquire whether or not the party be an idiot or lunatic, are on the law side of the Court of Chancery, and can only be redressed if erroneous, by writ of error in the regular course of law.
Dillingham and Hemphill, contra.
The writ of error from the Court of Chancery, is explained in 3 Bl. Com. 48, to be from the. ordinary court, to the Court of King’s Bench: but he there states, that he has met with no traces of any writ of error being actually brought since the fourteenth year of Queen Elizabeth,'A.. D. 1572. And in Rex v. Carey, where the cases referred to by Blackstone, were cited on a motion in chancery, for liberty to bring a writ of error in the King’s Bench, the lo'rd keeper, North, said, all those books were founded only .on the single opinion of my. Lord Dyer, -and that he thought the jurisdiction of Chancery, even of the Latin side, not subjected unto, nor to be controlled by the King’s ■Bench: and that he would enjoin all such writs of error. The proper remedy for any error committed, is by appeal to- the king in council, and not’ in the ordinary course attending the established jurisdiction of the kingdom. 2 Madd. Ch. 567, Sheldon v. Fer-tescue, 3 P. Wms. 104. 4 Bro. C.. C. 238, note. There are many cases in this state, in which no writ of error lies to this court, from the decisions of inferior tribunals, 2 Yeates, 162. None lies in case of a divorce, Miller v. Miller, 3 Binn. 30: nor in road cases, Ruhlmanv. The Commonwealth, 5 Binn. 24: or where the court below is to exercise its discretion Renningerv. Thompson, 6 Serg. & Rawle, 1. No such power is given by the act of assembly, of the 22d May, 1722, Purd. Dig. 310, or is deducible from ge~ neral principles. The power of a Court of Chancery, so far as relates to the care of the persons and estates of those who are non compotes mentis, is given by the constitution, to the Supreme Court, and the several Courts of Common Pleas, in the same language, and no superintendance of the one or the other is recognized.

Opinion:
The court quashed the writ of error.