Jenkins v. Jenkins' Heirs
| Decision Date | 19 April 1834 |
| Citation | 32 Ky. 102 |
| Parties | Anne Jenkins v. Jonathan Jenkins' Heirs. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR GARRARD COUNTY.
Mr Anderson for Plaintiff.
Mr Crittenden for Defendants.
The only question in this case, is whether Anne Jenkins is entitled to dower in the estate of Jonathan Jenkins deceased, with whom she intermarried after it had been ascertained, by regular inquisition that he was of " unsound mind," and with whom she continued to cohabit from the date of the marriage until his death, although he continued, as is alleged and not denied by her, to be of unsound mind without any lucid interval, from the date of the inquisition.
The question to be decided.
She insist, first, that there is no sufficient proof of his incapacity; second, that mere unsoundness of mind will not avoid a contract of marriage, and that the wife of even an idiot is entitled to dower.
First. The alleged unsoundness of mind at the date of the union, and the continuation of that unsoundness until dissolution must be deemed to have been admitted by the answer to the bill filed in this case for distribution. To that bill, Anne Jenkins merely says, that she " admits that she was the lawful wife of Jonathan Jenkins, deceased, at the time of his death; she therefore, as such, insists upon her right to dower."
The bill charges that a man was of unsound mind at the time of his marriage, and so continued till his death; the answer passing by the gist of the charge, ‘ admits that she was his lawful wife at the time of his death, and therefore, as such, insists upon her right to dower; '--allegation of the bill taken pro confesso.
Now the bill, not only did not suggest that she was the lawful wife of Jonathan Jenkins, but averred that she never was his wife; and, after setting forth the inquisition and the appointment of a committee alleged, as before stated, that he was never restored to soundness of mind. Such a response to such allegations, must be deemed a tacit admission of their truth. And, consequently, this court can not presume, even were such presumption allowable were there no evidence but the inquisition, that Jonathan Jenkins, at any time after the marriage or the inquisition, could, by cohabitation and recognition or otherwise, have become a husband de jure, or de facto. The alleged unsoundness of his mind must, therefore, be deemed to have been conclusively established.
Second. The terms " of unsound mind" have a determinate and technical import, and which is very comprehensive. They do not (when used in a legal sense), mean imbecility of mind merely, but are synonymous with non compos montis and import necessarily " a total deprivation of reason," comprehending idiocy, lunacy and adventitious madness, either temporary or permanent--remedial or irremediable. See the fourth, fifth and sixth numbers of the Law Library containing a late " practical treatise on the law concerning lunatics, idiots, and persons of unsound mind--by Leonard Shelford."
The terms " of unsound mind" or " non compos mentis" imply a total deprivation of reasonidiocy, lunacy or any other description of madness.
A person of unsound mind" can not be married. The performance of a marriage ceremony and continued cohabitation till death, with one in that condition, will not constitute a legal marriage; nor give claim to dower, or courtesy, in his, or her estate.
Thus understanding, as it is our duty judicially to understand the phrase " of unsound mind," when used in the inquisition and in the bill, we come to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beddow v. Beddow
...have to determine whether or not the marriage of an idiot or a lunatic is against the public policy of this State. In Jenkins v. Jenkins' Heirs, 2 Dana 102, 32 Ky. 102, Chief Justice Robertson 'A person of unsound mind--an idiot, for example, is, as to all intellectual purposes, dead; and s......