Appeal of Schutte

• Decision Date: 02 June 1916
• Citation: Appeal of Schutte, 97 A. 906, 90 Conn. 529 (Conn. 1916)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Appeal of SCHUTTE. SCHUTTE v. DOUGLAS et al.

97 A. 906

90 Conn. 529

Appeal of SCHUTTE.SCHUTTE

v. DOUGLAS et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 2, 1916.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Milton A. Shumway, Judge.

Application of Anna R. Schutte in the probate court of the district of Stamford, praying that said court set aside an order granted by it committing her to the care and custody of the Superintendent at Stamford Sanitarium, and the order appointing a conservator of her estate.From order denying the application, she appealed to the superior court, where a demurrer to the reasons of the appeal was overruled and a demurrer to the answer to reasons of appeal sustained.Thereafter, on trial, the appeal was dismissed, and, from the judgment of dismissal, applicant appeals.No error.

Mr. and Mrs. Mattern, the appellees, are husband and wife, and Mrs. Schutte, the appellant, is a sister of Mrs. Mattern.Prior to March 26, 1914, all resided at Dobbs Ferry, N. Y.On this day Mrs. Schutte was an habitual drunkard.She was then living with Mr. and Mrs. Slattern.On this day Mrs. Schutte was found lying in an intoxicated condition in the railroad station at Dobbs Ferry and there remained from 10 a. in. until 3 p. m., when Mr. Mattern was notified, went to the station, and placed her in the ladies' room of the station.He returned to his school, and when it was dismissed advised with Dr. Barry, and acting upon his advice, and with the object of benefiting Mrs. Schutte, arranged to place her in Dr. Givens' sanitarium in Stamford.He then hired an automobile, and in company with Dr. Barry drove to Dr. Givens' sanitarium, and arrived there in the evening of the 26th.When Mrs. Schutte arrived at Dr. Givens' she was informed of her whereabouts, and she was informed by Dr. Givens that she could not remain in the sanitarium unless she signed a voluntary commitment, which was a request for treatment in his institution.She had so far recovered as to understand her act, and she thereupon signed the voluntary commitment.Thereafter Dr. Givens prepared, upon information furnished by Mr. Mattern, an application addressed to the probate court for the district of Stamford, petitioning for the commitment of Mrs. Schutte to an inebriate asylum, and Mr. Mattern signed this.In this application Mr. Mattern was described as a brother of Mrs. Schutte, when in fact he was a brother-in-law.Mr. Mattern signed the application upon the advice of Dr. Givens that a relative under the statute under which the application was brought was any person connected with the alleged inebriate by blood or marriage.The probate court made an order for due service of and hearing upon this application, and service was made upon Mrs. Schutte at Dr. Givens' sanitarium in accordance with the order.On the morning of the 27th, Dr. Givens presented to Mrs. Schutte a second voluntary commitment which, after its details were explained to her, she signed.At this time Mrs. Schutte was normal, sober, and knew exactly what she was doing.Dr. Givens' motive in presenting the second commitment to Mrs. Schutte was that he desired to make certain that she had not changed her mind and that her act of signing of the night before continued to be her voluntary act.Mrs. Schutte had notice of the hearing, but made no request to be present.The probate court after hearing had on April 1, 1914, ordered Mrs. Schutte committed to said sanitarium for one year from April 1, 1914.

Mrs. Schutte at the time of her commitment to Dr. Givens' sanitarium was voluntarily residing in Stamford and was an habitual drunkard.Thereafter Mrs. Schutte communicated with her friend Dr. Douglas, and upon his advice and through him Mrs. Schutte employed as an attorney Mr. Nicholson.Shortly thereafter Mr. Nicholson, after consultation with Mrs. Schutte, prepared an application for the appointment of a conservator over Mrs. Schutte and filed the same in the probate court describing Mrs. Schutte as a resident of Stamford.Service was made on Mrs. Schutte in accordance with the order of the probate court.Thereafter, upon evidence produced by Mr. Nicholson, the probate court appointed Dr. Douglas as conservator of Mrs. Schutte on April 27th, and she was thereupon released from the sanitarium.No appeal was taken from the order appointing the conservator.No appeal was taken from the order committing her to Dr. Givens' sanitarium.Neither Mrs. Schutte nor any one for her requested her release from the sanitarium of the probate court or of the sanitarium.On May 6, 1914, Mrs. Schutte, at the instigation of Dr. Douglas, addressed a petition to the probatecourt requesting the court to set aside and revoke the order committing her as an habitual drunkard and the order appointing Dr. Douglas conservator.On June 5, 1914, after hearing had, the probate court denied the application.The present appeal was taken from the order dated June 5, 1914.The term of commitment of Mrs. Schutte had expired prior to the time when this appeal was heard in the superior court.

Edward K. Nicholson, of Bridgeport, for appellant.Charles D. Lockwood and Raymond E. Hackett, both of Stamford, for appellees.

WHEELER, J.(after stating the facts as above).The contention of the appellant has been that upon the facts as they should have been found the court erred.Our study of the evidence has failed to convince us that the court committed error either in finding material and relevant facts contrary to the evidence, or in refusing to find material and relevant facts.The appellant Mrs. Schutte was committed to Dr. Givens' sanitarium by order of the probate court for the district of Stamford, pursuant to General Statutes 1902, § 2744.That section gives the court of probate for any probate district of this state power to commit, after hearing had. one who is found by it to be, (a) a resident of or domiciled in the district, and (b) an habitual drunkard, upon application by (a) any of his relatives, and (b) upon such reasonable notice to the alleged inebriate as it may prescribe.The appellant attacks this order of commitment because of lack of jurisdiction to issue it upon two grounds: (1) That she was not a resident of the probate district of Stamford, and hence not subject to the jurisdiction of the probate court of that district.(2) That the application upon which the order issued was made by Mr. Mattern, a brother-in-law of the appellant, and not by a brother, as it recites, and because the application was not made by a relative of Mrs. Schutte the probate court was without jurisdiction to issue its order.

The words "relative...