Case Name: JOHNSTON vs. GIVEN et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1885-04-20
Citations: 4 Walk. 341
Docket Number: No. 25
Parties: JOHNSTON vs. GIVEN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the supreme court of pennsylvania which have been omitted from the regular reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 341–343

Head Matter:
JOHNSTON vs. GIVEN et al.
The finding upon an inquisition that a party is a lunatic, cannot ha ^collaterally attacked in another suit.
Error to Common Pleas No. 3, of Philadelphia County, No. 25 July Term, 1884.
This was an action of trespass on the case brought by Amelia G. Johnston against Bobert A. Given, J. M. Gemmill, Paul Graff and Bebecea I. V. Graff, for conspiracy and causing plaintiff to be placed in a lunatic asylum. Lunacy proceedings were instituted July 25, 1863; inquisition was taken .and report filed August 8th, 1868, and confirmed August 15th, 1868. The inquisition returned set forth that Amelia Johnston had been a lunatic for four years prior to August 3rd, 1868, and that she had no lucid intervals. She was not be fore the jury of inquest, She afterwards applied to have the proceedings set aside, and the Court made the following order: “Upon consideration of the petition of the said Amelia G. Johnston, filed February 4, 1874, setting forth that she is restored to a sound state of mind, the Court having taken proofs of the facts, and being satisfied of the truth of the allegations in the said petition, do order that the commission issued in. this case, and in the appointment of the committee, and all proceedings relating thereto, be altogether superseded and determined.”
Upon trial of the present case the Court rejected depositions of witnesses who testified they believed the plaintiff to be sane when she was placed in the asylum; holding that the inquest was conclusive of the question of her lunacy; and that parol evidence was inadmissible to contradict it. The Court directed a non-suit to be entered; and the plaintiff then took this writ of error complaining of the action of the Court in these respects.
J. H. Colton, W. W. Weigley and B. H. Brewster, Esqs, for plaintiff in error,
argued that the finding of inquisition was not conclusive; Noel vs. Karper, 53 Pa., 97; Willis vs. Willis, 12 Pa., 159; Hutchinson vs. Sandt, 4 R., 234; Sill vs. McKnight, 7 W. & S., 244; Rogers vs. Walker, 6 Pa., 371; Gangwere’s Estate, 14 Pa., 417; Titlow vs. Titlow, 54 Pa., 216; Leckey vs. Cunningham, 56 Pa., 371; Lancaster County Bank, vs. Moore, 78 Pa., 407; McGinnis vs. Commonwealth, 74 Pa., 245; Bowman vs. Van Baum, 14 W. N. C., 185. Not only physicians, but friends and attendants are competent witnesses as to the sanity or insanity of a party; Rambler vs. Tryon, 7 S. & R, 190; Irish vs. Smith, 8 S. & R„ 573; Wogan vs. Small, 11 S. & R., 141; Wilkinson vs. Pearson, 23 Pa., 117; Bricker vs. Lightner, 40 Pa., 199; Dickinson vs. Dickinson, 61 Pa., 404; Pidcock vs. Potter, 68 Pa., 342; Thompson vs. Stevens, 71 Pa., 161; Pannell vs. Commonwealth, 86 Pa., 260; Neveling vs. Commonwealth, 98 Pa., 322.
Wayne MacVeagh, R. H. McGrath and Wm. S. Lane, Esqs., for defendants in error,
argued that the finding of the inquisi tion was conclusive, and the non-suit was properly entered, and cited: Wilson vs. Gaston, 92 Pa., 215; Herr vs. Herr, 5. Pa., 428; Westcott vs. Edmunds, 68 Pa., 31; Hunter’s Private Road, 46 Pa., 250; Taylor vs. Cornelius, 60 Pa., 187; Lamb, vs. Miller, 18 Pa., 450; Duchess of Kingston’s Case, 11 Harg., State Trials, 261; McPherson vs. Cunliff, 11 S. & R., 422; Kennedy vs. Wachsmuth, 12 S. & R., 171; Selin vs. Snyder, 7 S. & R., 172; Hibshman vs. Dulleban, 4 Watts, 191; Kille vs.. Ege, 82 Pa., 111; Nelson’s Appeal, 67 Pa., 165.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common. Pleas on April 20th, 1885, in the following opinion;
Per Curiam.
There was no error in rejecting the evidence. It was insufficient to remove the effect of the inquest. The averment of record by the plaintiff that she was restored to a sound state*, of mind impliedly admits that it was unsound when so found! by the inquest. Hence, instead of impeaching the correctness of the finding of lunacy, the effect was to confirm it. Due force must therefore be given to the inquest. It protects the* action of the defendants taken under it, and exempts them from liability in this action.
Judgment affirmed.