Bonhomme County v. Berndt
| Decision Date | 20 June 1900 |
| Citation | 83 N.W. 333,13 S.D. 309 |
| Parties | BONHOMME COUNTY v. BERNDT et al. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Bonhomme county; E. G. Smith, Judge.
Action by Bonhomme county, S. D., against Friedrich Berndt and another. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
W. T Williams, State's Atty., for appellant. Elliot & Stilwill, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant Friedrich Berndt is an insane person, mentally incompetent to manage his property, and has been such since the 16th day of January, 1889; that on the 22d day of January, 1889, the defendant Theodore Berndt was duly appointed guardian of the person and estate of the defendant Friedrich Berndt; that on the 16th day of January, 1889, defendant Friedrich Berndt was, and ever since has been, and now is, an unmarried person, and has no children or heirs within the United States dependent upon his estate for support; that on the 21st day of May, 1889, said Friedrich Berndt was, at the request of his guardian, the above-named defendant Theodore Berndt, duly ordered to be taken to the hospital for the insane at Yankton, where he has ever since been, and now is, an inmate receiving treatment and maintenance therein; that on the last-mentioned date said Friedrich Berndt had and owned property in Bonhomme county, in this state, consisting of 480 acres of farm land, of which he has ever since been, and now is, the owner in fee, and that said estate is unincumbered and is worth the sum of $7,000; that the plaintiff county has paid out for and on account of the defendant Friedrich Berndt, at the request of his guardian above named, for his care, treatment, and support in the hospital for the insane since the 1st day of July, 1891, the sum of $1,568; that on the 28th day of January, 1898, the board of county commissioners of the plaintiff county instructed its county auditor to present to the defendant Theodore Berndt, guardian as aforesaid, a bill for the amount so incurred and paid out by the plaintiff for the treatment and maintenance of the said Friedrich Berndt at said hospital for the insane, and demand payment of such sum; that afterwards said county presented to said Theodore Berndt, as guardian, a duly-verified bill for the amount so paid out and expended by this plaintiff, which said bill said defendant then and there refused to pay wherefore this plaintiff demands judgment against said Friedrich Berndt and Theodore Berndt, as guardian, for the said sum, with interest at 7 per cent. from January 1, 1899, and that said Theodore Berndt pay to the plaintiff, out of the property, moneys, and credits in his hands as guardian, the said sum, with interest, besides the costs and disbursements of this action. To this complaint the defendants interposed a demurrer upon the ground, among others, "that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants, or either of them."
Counsel for the appellant contends that under the provisions of an act entitled "An act providing for the reimbursement of counties for the expense of maintenance of insane persons in certain cases," approved March 11, 1895 (being chapter 98, Laws 1895), the plaintiff is entitled to maintain this action. Section 1 of that act reads as follows: "The amount incurred by any county of this state for treatment and maintenance of any insane person in the hospital for the insane shall be a charge against the estate of such insane person: provided, that the insane person has no heirs within the United States dependent on said estate for support, and that no real property shall be sold during the life of the insane person: and further provided, that no personal property shall be sold under five years from the date of the sending of such insane person to the asylum, unless by order of the court upon the death of the insane person or when such property is liable to deteriorate in value during the time above specified, and when sold as above the county judge shall safely invest the proceeds thereof for the benefit of the insane person." The facts as alleged in the complaint bring this case clearly within the provisions of the act, and this seems not to be controverted by counsel for the respondents, but they insist that the act is unconstitutional, for the reason that it does not make the estates of all insane persons liable, but only in exceptional cases, viz. those named in the proviso, which reads as follows: "Provided, that the insane person has no heirs within the United States dependent on said estate for support,"--and granting immunity to every other insane person, and the privilege of treatment, etc., in the insane asylum free of expense, as provided by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial