Biddle v. Jenkins

Decision Date06 March 1901
Citation85 N.W. 392,61 Neb. 400
PartiesBIDDLE v. JENKINS.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.

1. The commissioners of insanity have cognizance not only of applications for admission to the hospital for the insane, but also for the safe-keeping otherwise of insane persons in their respective counties.

2. An affidavit filed with the commissioners of insanity, alleging that a person resident of their county is insane, and his being at large is dangerous to the community, confers jurisdiction upon the board to act.

3. Insanity cannot be established by proof of the reputation of the party in that regard.

4. The advice of counsel, to be of any avail, must have been given after a full and fair statement of all the facts within the knowledge of the person seeking the same, and must have been relied upon in good faith.

Error to district court, Clay county; Hastings, Judge.

Action by Sarah Biddle against Edward J. Jenkins. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.Chas. O. Whedon, for plaintiff in error.

J. L. Epperson, for defendant in error.

NORVAL, C. J.

Sarah Biddle sued defendant for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The cause of complaint was that defendant had theretofore falsely and maliciously, without probable or reasonable cause therefor, charged her, in an affidavit presented to the commissioners of insanity, with being insane. The affidavit was as follows: State of Nebraska, Clay County--ss.: The undersigned, a citizen of Fairfield, Clay county, Nebraska, being sworn, says that he believes Sarah Biddle is insane; that her being at large is dangerous to the community. She has a legal settlement in said county. [Signed] E. J. Jenkins.” Said affidavit was sworn to before a competent officer. Upon it a warrant was duly issued, and she was arrested and deprived of her liberty, remaining in the custody of the sheriff for five days. On the hearing had, she was acquitted, and found not to be insane. She alleges that by reason of such imprisonment and prosecution she was injured in her credit and reputation, brought into public scandal, infamy, and disgrace, and suffered great bodily and mental anxiety and pain, and was forced to expend certain moneys in securing her discharge, and that by reason of the premises she was damaged in the sum of $5,000, for which sum she prayed judgment. Defendant's answer admitted the making of the affidavit, and that she was discharged, but denied that it was made falsely or maliciously, and alleged as a defense that at the time that he made the affidavit, and prior thereto, she had conducted herself in such a manner as would have induced a man of ordinary prudence and discretion to believe she was insane, and he so believed when he made the affidavit; that before making it he consulted creditable lawyers and a competent doctor, and to each of them made, in good faith, a full, true, and fair statement of the facts relative to the conduct of plaintiff, and, after hearing the same, they advised him to make said affidavit; and that he, in good faith, acting upon such advice, made the same. A reply was filed, and on issues thus joined trial was had, resulting in a verdict in favor of defendant, and from the judgment rendered thereon plaintiff brings the case to this court on error.

Section 21, c. 40, Comp. St., provides, among other things, that the information therein required shall state that the person in whose behalf it is made is believed to be a fit subject for custody and treatment in the hospital for the insane. It is urged that, because the affidavit in this case failed to contain that allegation, no cause for action on the part of the board was stated, and that for that reason plaintiff was entitled to a verdict on the answer. Whether the affidavit was defective in this respect is immaterial, as it did state facts sufficient to call for the action of the board under section 20 of said chapter; for thereby the commissioners are given cognizance not only of applications for admission to the hospital for the insane, but also for the safe-keeping “otherwise” of insane persons in their respective counties. Under the allegations of the affidavit that the plaintiff was insane, and that her being at large was dangerous to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT