Cochran v. Amsden

• Decision Date: 18 December 1885
• Citation: 104 Ind. 282,3 N.E. 934
• Parties: Cochran v. Amsden, Guardian, etc.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

104 Ind. 282

3 N.E. 934

Cochran

v.Amsden, Guardian, etc.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Filed December 18, 1885.

Appeal from Shelby circuit court.

Ferris & Ferris and W. W. Spencer, for appellant.

Love, Major & Morrison, for appellee.

ELLIOTT, J.

The appellant in his petition alleges that Elizabeth Clayton was adjudged to be a person of unsound mind, on the eleventh day of April, 1884, and that her reason has been restored. Prayer that her disability may be removed, and that she be declared a person of sound mind. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict against the petitioner, upon which judgment was pronounced.

There was no error in permitting the appellee to prove that Daniel Cochran, a witness called by the appellant, had expressed out of court an opinion different from that expressed on the witness-stand. If a witness has expressed contradictory opinions, that fact goes to his credibility as a witness, and also supplies grounds for distrusting his ability to form a correct opinion. Rog. Exp. Test. 51.

The court gave an instruction containing the following statement: “The sole question submitted for your consideration is, is Elizabeth Clayton now a person of sound mind and capable of managing her own estate?” We regard this as a correct statement of the question which the jury were to decide. The object of an inquiry as to the mental condition of a person alleged to be of unsound mind is to ascertain whether it is or is not proper to appoint a guardian, and, in order to determine this question, it must be ascertained whether the insane person is capable of managing his estate. The statute does not contemplate the holding of the inquest for a mere general purpose, but intends that it shall be held for a specific purpose, and that purpose is to ascertain whether it is or is not proper to appoint a guardian. As this is the purpose of the statute, it follows that, when it is sought to set aside the guardianship, the controlling question is whether the person previously declared insane is capable of managing his estate,-if he is, the guardian should be removed; if he is not, the guardian should be continued in office. We are well satisfied that the purpose of the statute in providing for such a proceeding as the present is to enable the court to determine whether the person previously adjudged to be of unsound mind has so far regained his reason as to be capable of managing his own estate. To hold otherwise would defeat the plain intention of the legislature, and make the statute of no practical benefit. The language employed by the legislature will not warrant any other conclusion than the one we have announced. Rev. St. 2545-2553.

The instruction of the court as to the form of the verdict was correct. It was proper for the jury, if they found for the petitioner, to state that Elizabeth Clayton was of sound mind, and capable of managing her estate; and, if they found against the petitioner, it was proper for them to state that she was of unsound mind and incapable of managing her estate. It was proper to indicate the character of the mental incapacity; for it is not every person with impaired mental powers that can be declared incapable of managing his estate, nor is it every person whose mind is impaired, although he has some mental power, that is capable of managing his business affairs. The decision in Re Carmichael, 36 Ala. 616, relied upon by appellant's counsel, lends them no support. On the contrary, it is directly and strongly against them. What that case decides is that it is improper to ask a witness his opinion as to whether the person whose mental capacity is under investigation is capable of managing his affairs, and the reason for that ruling is that the question is for the jury. As decided in Walker v. Walker, 34 Ala. 469, that question is always for the jury, and it is upon the case just named that the case relied on by counsel is founded. If a person under guardianship as an insane person is not so far...