Buzz
Supernatural phenomena, by their very nature, exist outside the boundaries of our everyday reality. While some people are firm believers, others remain unconvinced. More often than not, debates about ghosts or spirits take place casually over dinner or at the pub, but occasionally, they escalate into more serious matters. Throughout history, there have been several instances where courts had to address issues related to ghosts, deities, and other questionable entities.
Here are ten lawsuits in which the supernatural took center stage in court.
10. The Ghost Author
Francisco Cândido Xavier, widely known as Chico Xavier, was one of Brazil's most beloved authors of the 20th century. Having written 450 books, Xavier's working process was quite extraordinary. He claimed that all of his writings were dictated to him by spirits through a method called psychography. A devoted spiritist, Xavier believed that mediums like himself could connect with disembodied spirits, including those of the deceased. Many of his works were said to have been written by the spirits of other dead authors.
This raised several ethical and legal questions. One of the main concerns for the family of the late poet Humberto de Campo was who should receive the royalties for his posthumous works. Xavier argued that de Campo had written these works through him, yet it was Xavier who took the earnings. De Campo's family believed the money should rightfully go to them—or Xavier should admit to fabricating the works—and they decided to sue.
The case went to trial in 1944, with the family demanding that everyone involved, including the spirit of Humberto de Campo, be compelled to attend. Unfortunately, before de Campo's spirit could make an appearance, the judge dismissed the case, ruling that dead individuals have no civil rights and that a family can only claim ownership of works produced by an author during their lifetime.
In 1981, a petition with two million signatures was gathered, calling for Xavier to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. However, he did not receive it.
9. Betty Penrose v. God
When misfortune strikes, it's common to direct our frustration toward fate, fortune, or even the gods. While most of us simply move on, some people feel the need for someone to take responsibility for their bad luck. Known for their litigious nature, it's perhaps no surprise that in the United States, God has been taken to court.
When Betty Penrose's Arizona home was struck by lightning and reduced to ashes, there was only one party to blame. With the help of her lawyer, she filed a lawsuit in California in 1969 against God, seeking $100,000 in damages, arguing that God was responsible for the 'operation of the universe, including the weather in and upon the State of Arizona.'
The case was heard in California due to a recent property transfer to God's legal ownership. If God could own property, he could also be sued. However, the deed for this transfer was ruled invalid, though Penrose's case had already been decided in her favor. She won the case, but was never able to collect her judgment.
8. Ernie Chambers v. God
When you oversee the entire universe, it makes sense that you would eventually be held accountable. God has faced multiple lawsuits, and in 2007, Ernie Chambers, a Nebraska state senator, became the latest to bring a case.
Chambers sought a judicial injunction demanding that God cease his 'fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects, and the like.' God could be sued in Nebraska due to his omnipresence and the existence of 'putative' agents (priests) acting on his behalf. As an omniscient being, God could not claim ignorance of the harm he was causing.
The case was brought before a judge but was ultimately dismissed as God could not be contacted or summoned to trial. For Chambers, however, this was still a victory. He never intended to sue God; his goal was simply to make a point that every case deserved consideration, and none should be dismissed as frivolous. This followed a prior case where a rape trial and the plaintiff's right to call the crime a rape had been dismissed as 'frivolous.'
7. Pavel Mircea
When someone is baptized, do they enter into a binding legal agreement with God? This was the question at the core of a lawsuit filed by a Romanian prisoner. Pavel Mircea, serving a 20-year sentence for murder, began to believe that his crimes were the result of Satan’s influence. Why, he wondered, had God not protected him from Satan’s temptations?
Mircea claimed that God had been happy to accept his prayers and offerings but had failed to deliver the benefits promised to Christians. In his eyes, God was in breach of contract. As God's representative, Mircea also sued the Orthodox Church.
Unfortunately for Mircea, his efforts were in vain. The case was dismissed because God was neither a citizen nor a corporation within Romania's jurisdiction.
6. Stambovsky v. Ackley
Helen Ackley claimed to have experienced years of poltergeist activity in her New York home. She shared her haunting experiences in several press articles, and soon her house gained a reputation as being haunted. When she sold the house to Jeffrey Stambovsky, she reportedly told him about the hauntings, to which he responded, 'We’ll have to call in the Ghostbusters.' The contract was then signed.
However, Stambovsky soon had second thoughts. He claimed that he had only just learned of the hauntings and wanted to back out of the sale. He then took Ackley and her real estate agent to court, accusing them of fraudulent misrepresentation of the property.
The first trial was dismissed, but Stambovsky appealed. The court ruled that 'as a matter of law, the house is haunted.' This was not a statement confirming the existence of ghosts, but rather that the house's reputation as haunted could impact its market value. The court also acknowledged that buyers had a responsibility to investigate a property before purchasing, but since ghosts cannot be seen, they allowed the contract to be broken.
5. Burchill v. Hermameyer
In 1919, a Mr. Hermameyer was told by Mrs. Burchill that there was a fortune to be made from oil on her property. All he needed to do was invest in her oil company to receive a share of the wealth. He agreed, investing $10,000, a significant amount of money at the time. But why did he trust that oil would actually be discovered? Mrs. Burchill had been informed of the oil by a medium who had received the information from a spirit.
Hermameyer sued Burchill to recover his money after the ghostly oil prospector's prediction turned out to be false—no oil was found. Hermameyer argued that his mind had been in an 'abnormal and irrational condition' when he believed the spirit's claim, so he felt entitled to have his money returned.
The court did not side with Hermameyer. While it did not outright dismiss the possibility that spirits might communicate with the living, it stated, 'these subjects belong to realms and powers that as yet must generally be classed as purely speculative, and not so established by evidences cognizable by the law which we are required to administer as to be classed as facts—as among proven things.' Hermameyer had chosen to act on his belief in ghosts, so his investment was not considered to have been made under fraudulent pretenses.
4. McClary v. Stull
In 1895, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled on a case involving a will and the influence of ghosts. Elizabeth Handley, a widow with strong spiritual beliefs, regularly consulted spirits, including that of her deceased husband, using a planchette—a tool similar to a Ouija board. Upon her death, her will was read, stating that most of her estate would be sold, and the proceeds donated to a charity called The Home of the Friendless. Her children contested the will, claiming that it had been written under the influence of their father's spirit.
The court ruled that the will should remain valid. 'Law, it is said, is 'of the earth, earthy' and that spirit-wills are too celestial for cognizance by earthly tribunals—a proposition readily conceded; and yet the courts have not assumed to deny to spirits of the departed the privilege of holding communion with those of their friends who are still in the flesh so long as they do not interfere with vested rights or by the means of undue influence seek to prejudice the interests of persons still within our jurisdiction.' Since the deceased woman was not deemed insane in her beliefs, she had the right to allocate her money as she wished.
3. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff
Filing a lawsuit against the Devil is not for the faint of heart. One would have to assume that, as the ruler of the damned, the Devil has access to the finest legal minds throughout history. Nonetheless, in 1971, Gerald Mayo, a prisoner in Pennsylvania, took the bold step of suing Beelzebub himself.
In his lawsuit, Mayo argued that the Devil was responsible for all of his misfortunes. 'Satan [had] on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan [had] placed deliberate obstacles in his path and [had] caused plaintiff’s downfall.' Mayo claimed that, through these actions, Satan and his minions had violated his constitutional rights.
The judge, however, was forced to dismiss the case for multiple reasons. First, there was no proof that the Devil resided in the district, which raised questions about the court's jurisdiction. Secondly, there was the issue of how to serve a summons to Satan. It’s unlikely that anyone would be willing to venture to Hell to deliver court papers.
2. Hammersmith Ghost Murder
Nowadays, ghost hunters typically rely on video cameras to capture paranormal phenomena. However, this wasn’t always the case. In 1804, a wave of reports circulated about a ghost terrorizing people in the Hammersmith district of London. Described as a tall figure dressed entirely in white, this spirit was thought to be the soul of someone who had taken their own life. In response, groups of men formed to search the streets for the phantom.
One evening, Francis Smith encountered a man in white and, believing him to be the ghost, shouted, 'Damn you; who are you and what are you? Damn you, I’ll shoot you.' He then fired his gun. The shot struck the figure in the jaw, knocking him to the ground. It was soon revealed that the 'ghost' was, in fact, Thomas Millwood, a bricklayer simply wearing the traditional white clothing of his trade. He died instantly.
Smith was charged with murder. The heightened panic surrounding the ghost rumors was not deemed a valid defense, and he was convicted. Initially sentenced to death, his punishment was later reduced to a year of hard labor. However, this case set a legal precedent in English law: mistaking someone for a ghost is not a justifiable reason to kill them.
1. Edward Stribbling Shue
There is one case in the United States where a ghost’s testimony led to a conviction. When Edward Shue’s wife, Zona, was discovered dead at the foot of the stairs in their home, Shue moved her body to the bed and dressed her in a high-necked collar before the doctor arrived. When the doctor examined the body, he avoided the neck and head, which Shue was holding with an air of mourning. Most accepted that her death was an accident, but Zona’s mother had her doubts about the cause.
That night, Zona’s ghost visited her grieving mother and revealed the truth. The apparition claimed she had been strangled and her neck broken at 'the first joint.' Zona’s mother pushed for further investigation, and the body was exhumed. The autopsy revealed the ghost’s account was accurate: Zona had indeed been strangled and her neck broken exactly where the ghost had described.
Edward Shue was charged with murder. To perhaps undermine the ghostly testimony, Zona’s mother was called to testify about the apparition. The jury appeared convinced by her account, for they found Shue guilty of murder and sentenced him to life in prison.
