Bahr v. Zahm
| Decision Date | 09 December 1941 |
| Docket Number | 27614. |
| Citation | 37 N.E.2d 942,219 Ind. 297 |
| Parties | BAHR, Superintendent of Central State Hospital, v. ZAHM et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Appeal from Huntington Circuit Court; Otto H. Krieg Judge.
George N. Beamer, Atty. Gen., and Walter O. Lewis Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Arthur H. Sapp and U. S. Lesh, both of Huntington, and Nippert & Nippert, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellees.
In November, 1871, Christian Schneider was committed as an insane person to the Central State Hospital of the State of Indiana, where he remained as an inmate until his death in April, 1928. An administrator of his estate was appointed in May, 1928, and in January, 1933, the administrator filed his final report, which was approved on April 10th of that year. The report showed a balance for distribution of $4,652.78 which was paid on the order of the court to its clerk, who retains the same. In 1939 the appellant filed a petition to reopen said estate and to recover the reasonable value of the care, maintenance, and medical treatment rendered the decedent, alleged to be $4 per week, from the date of his commitment to said institution, on November 2, 1871, until March 6, 1917, when chapter 72, Acts of 1917, became effective.
The evidence was stipulated and the trial court found for the appellees. The appeal is from the overruling of the appellant's motion for a new trial, in which it was asserted that the decision is contrary to law. The first question presented by the record is this: Was the appellant's action barred by § 6-1001, Burns' 1933, § 3119, Baldwin's 1934, which requires that, with certain exceptions not here involved, claims against decedents' estates shall be barred if not filed at least 30 days before final settlement.
The Attorney General contends that it was not necessary for the appellant to file a claim against the estate, because chapter 72 of the Acts of 1917 made it the positive duty of the personal representative to reimburse the state for the expense of caring for the decedent. In § 1 of the act it is provided:
'* * * That when any person who is being supported at public expenses in a hospital for the insane * * * or who has died when an inmate of any such institution, is found to have an estate in charge of a trustee or guardian, which estate is not needed for the support in whole or in part of the husband, wife, children, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, brothers or sisters of such person, then the amount of expense incurred by the state for the treatment and maintenance of such person shall be a charge against his estate both during his life time and after his death.'
We do not construe the act as imposing an unconditional obligation to pay, nor do we think that it was intended that the personal representative should be required to correctly determine the matter of dependency or partial dependency at his peril. It would be more consistent to hold, as we do, that the governmental agency claiming that there was no such dependency should present that issue and assume the burden of establishing it. This conclusion is fortified by § 2 of the act, in which it is provided that:
'The superintendent or executive officer under the direction of the board of trustees of each benevolent institution is authorized to bring suit against the estate of any person as aforesaid failing to make payment as required in this act * * *.'
Having determined that it was necessary for the appellant to file a claim, we are next confronted with § 2-613, Burns' 1933, § 72, Baldwin's 1934, which provides that:
'Limitations of actions shall not bar the state of Indiana, except as to sureties.'
In State ex rel. Slinkard, Prosecuting Attorney v. Edwards, Adm'r, 1894, 11 Ind.App. 226, 232, 38 N.E. 544, 546, the state recovered a judgment on a recognizance bond. A claim was filed against the estate of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson Federation of Teachers, Local 519 v. School City of Anderson
...A statute of this type has been held to bind the State even though it was not expressly referred to in the statute. Bahr v. Zahm (1941), 219 Ind. 297, 37 N.E.2d 942. There the Court held that the State was barred from filing a claim against a decedent's estate because it had not been filed ......