King v. McLean Asylum of the Massachusetts General Hospital, 95.
Decision Date | 12 October 1894 |
Docket Number | 95. |
Citation | 64 F. 331 |
Parties | KING v. McLEAN ASYLUM OF THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Edward Avery for appellant.
Geo. O Shattuck, Wm. A. Munroe, Wm. F. Wharton, and Richard L Sweezy, for appellees.
Before PUTNAM, Circuit Judge, and NELSON and WEBB, District Judges.
The opinion filed in this case June 4, 1894 (64 F. 325), disposed of the question of the jurisdiction of this court, and also of that of the jurisdiction of the circuit court, so far as the latter relates to any alleged restraint contrary to the constitution or laws of the United States, but left open the question of its jurisdiction, so far as based on the diverse citizenship of the parties to the petition. We must dispose of this, because it is necessary to determine whether we should affirm or reverse, or only direct the circuit court to dismiss.
The allegations in the petition touching the citizenship of the petitioner are not in the usual form, and it may well be questioned whether they are sufficient; yet there is so much doubt touching them that the court does not feel itself called on to dismiss the case on this account of its own motion. If the case before the court was one, admittedly, of such degree of insanity in the petitioner that it was apparent the essential question was of the place and character of his confinement, either for restraint or cure, a very different question would be presented from that which we understand is raised by the record. in that event the circuit court would have been asked to perform the duties ordinarily vesting in a superior court of common law, or in the chancellor, as parens patriae; and under such circumstances it would have had no jurisdiction, as we will explain hereafter. We conclude, however, that the strict issue here is that the petitioner is not of unsound mind, to that extent that he is incapable of self-control or self-care, or needs hospital treatment, and that he is entitled to his liberty on the ground that restraint of him as an insane person anywhere cannot be authorized. We have come to this understanding, although the pleadings are not positive on this point. The precise question of jurisdiction thus raised has not been authoritatively determined. In Re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 10 Sup.Ct. 850, the following occurs on pages 595 and 596, 136 U.S.,and at page 850, 10 Sup. Ct.:
.
In addition are the expressions cited on page 595, 136 U.S.,and page 850, 10 Sup. Ct., from Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. 103, to the effect that the questions involved in writs of habeas corpus are ordinarily incapable of being reduced to any standard of pecuniary value. We are entirely satisfied, however, that none of the statutes relating specifically to the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, and involving money values as a condition of such jurisdiction, including that of March 3, 1875, c. 137 (18 Stat. 470), and that of March 3, 1887, as re-enacted by the act of August 13, 1888, c. 866 (25 Stat. 433), has taken from them jurisdiction of the issue in this case, so far as it can be found, if at all, in any older statute, and that, therefore, we are not required in this case to look for a money value. That such statutes have only a limited range, either in vesting the circuit courts with jurisdiction, or, on the other hand, of divesting them of jurisdiction given them by any authority outside of statutes of that particular class, was settled in Re Hohorst, 150 U.S. 653, 14 Sup.Ct. 221. The proposition is also supported by U.S. v. Mooney, 116 U.S. 104, 6 Sup.Ct. 304. Here it was held that the general terms of the act of March 3, 1875, did not invest the circuit courts with jurisdiction over suits for penalties and forfeitures, which had been before exclusively vested in the district courts. The court said (page 106, 116 U.S.,and page 304, 6 Sup.Ct.):
Section 751 of the Revised Statutes, giving power to issue writs of habeas corpus, stands, so far as the statutes of March 3, 1875, August 13, 1888, and other statutes of that class, are concerned, on the same footing as section 629, referred to in U.S. v. Mooney; so that if section 751, and the original enactment out of which it arose, ever vested in the circuit courts jurisdiction when the issues arose as they arise in the case at bar, that jurisdiction remains unaffected by any other legislation. In re Louisville Underwriters, 134 U.S. 488, 10 Sup.Ct. 587, also tends to confirm our conclusions on this point.
It is claimed by the appellees that this proceeding is not a controversy, in the sense of the constitution, and that it is only an inquisition in behalf of the state. The appellees rely even on the method of entitling the cause, but this palpably goes too far. Cases of habeas corpus in the federal courts may, after the writ issues, be entitled in behalf of the United States, as was done in the first one before the supreme court. U.S. v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17. So that, if the entitling was of effect, we would have here a proceeding in behalf of the United States, over which its courts would clearly have jurisdiction. However, this matter of entitling with the name of the sovereign or state, and substantially all that was formerly said touching the prerogative character of certain writs, have long ceased to be of value. Com. v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 97. It is true that, as claimed by the appellees, Judge Betts, in his opinion in Re Barry, 136 U.S. 597, 42 F. 113, did say, on page 615, 136 U.S.,and page 113, 42 Fed., as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Union & Planters' Bank of Memphis v. City of Memphis
... ... : In 1859 the state of Tennessee, by its general ... assembly, granted a charter under which the ... 17, Fed. Cas. No ... 5,760; King v. Asylum, 12 C.C.A. 145, 164, 165, 64 ... F ... ...
-
Sylvander v. New England Home for Little Wanderers
...Strait v. Laird, 406 U.S. 341, 92 S.Ct. 1633, 32 L.Ed.2d 141 (1972); and for mental patients confined to an asylum, See King v. McLean Asylum, 64 F. 331 (1st Cir. 1894); Cf. Arensman v. Brown, 430 F.2d 190, 194 (7th Cir. 1970) (dictum). Extending the writ to persons accused of crimes who ar......
-
Dorsey v. Gill
...In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 591, 10 S.Ct. 850, 34 L.Ed. 500; Herzog v. Colpoys, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 143 F.2d 137; see King v. McLean, 1 Cir., 64 F. 331, 332, 26 L.R.A. 784; Ex parte Moebus, C.C.D.N.H., 148 F. 54 See 28 U.S.C.A. § 454. 55 Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 551, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.......
-
Lehman v. Lycoming County Children Services Agency, 80-2177
...to show that he really acts for the benefit of the infants, and not to promote purposes of his own.' " King v. McLean Asylum of Massachusetts General Hospital, 64 F. 331, 356 (CA1 1894), quoting Sale v. Sale, 1 Beav. 586, 587, 48 Eng.Rep. 1068, 1069 (1839). "[I]n such cases the court exerci......