Ex parte Nowack
| Decision Date | 02 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 197. |
| Citation | 265 N.W. 459,274 Mich. 544 |
| Parties | Ex parte NOWACK. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Original proceeding in the matter of Joseph Nowack on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a petition of certiorari to review the proceedings by which Joseph Nowack was committed to the state hospital, and to secure his release.
Order in accordance with opinion.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Dan Manason, Chester Schwartz, and George E. Brand, all of Detroit, for petitioner.
An attorney who formerly represented Joseph Nowack of the township of Greendale, Midland county, Mich., has filed in this court a petition for habeas corpus and an ancillary petition of certiorari to review the proceedings by which Nowack was committed to the state hospital at Traverse City, Mich., and to secure his release. The return of the superintendent of the hospital and the probate judge, together with the accompanying documents, show that Nowack was committed by order of the probate court for the county of Midland and a guardian was appointed to look after his interests. The petition in the probate court alleged that Nowack had property of the value of $2,000, but correspondence shows that it was considered worth more, and the bond of the guardian was later increased from $2,000 to $3,000. Notwithstandingthis, Joseph was committed as a ‘public’ patient.
Petitioner contends that the proceedings are fatally defective. They were instituted under section 6888 et seq., C.L. 1929, which makes provisions for insane, feeble-minded, and epileptic persons. The petition in the probate court contains no allegation that Nowack comes within such classification, but merely describes Nowack as mentally incompetent. One of the doctors who examined Alex Nowack, a brother of Joseph, on the same day that he diagnosed Joseph's condition, although he stated that Alex was an ‘insane person,’ in his affidavit described Joseph as ‘mentally incompetent.’ Provision for the custody and care of incompetent persons and their property may be found under the heading of ‘Guardians and Wards' in section 15763 et seq., C.L.1929. It may be asserted, however, that the further allegations of the petition stating that Joseph requires treatment as an insane person cures the insufficient description. As section 6921, C.L.1929, defines an insane person so as to include every species of insanity and to extend to every deranged person and to all of unsound mind other than feeble-minded, idiotic persons, imbeciles, and epileptics, it may be claimed that the petition contains sufficient allegations so that a citation might issue to bring the alleged insane person into court where a proper showing must be made in and event. This point is not briefed, so we pass it with the admonition that it would be far better to follow the wording of the statute so as to remove all doubts.
We look further into the petition to ascertain whether it contains sufficient allegation of facts that would bring Nowack within the purview of section 6888, supra. The petition states that Joseph is laboring under the delusion that he owns property worth a great deal of money and that some oil company is going to purchase it for $600,000. The belief or delusion that one owns oil, mining, or other forms of property of great potential worth has been indulged in by many, and particularly so before the depression, but of itself it is not an indication of insanity. Another allegation states that Joseph believes that the judge and prosecuting attorney are preventing him from obtaining large sums of money and that he has a right to violate all the laws and injunctions issued by the circuit court. We have heard of other disappointed litigants and there is quick and effective process to compel obedience to laws and injunctions. It is further alleged that Joseph ‘believes himself to be bright and smart, all of which is just an insane delusion.’ Again we have heard of similar characteristics in others who do not require...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fritts v. Krugh
...may be attacked by habeas corpus. In re Mills, 131 Mich. 325, 91 N.W. 356; In re Allen, 139 Mich. 712, 103 N.W. 209; In re Nowack, 274 Mich. 544, 265 N.W. 459. See, also, Freedman v. Freedman, 303 Mich. 647, 6 N.W.2d 924; In re McKinney, 326 Mich. 190, 40 N.W.2d 114; In re Mills, 135 U.S. 2......
-
Hackin v. Arizona, 523
...parte Dostal, 243 F. 664, 668 (D.C.N.D.Ohio); State ex rel. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 111 Fla. 454, 461, 152 So. 207, 209; In re Nowack, 274 Mich. 544, 549, 265 N.W. 459, 461; In re Nahl v. Delmore, 49 Wash.2d 318, 301 P.2d 161; 28 U.S.C. § 2242. An Arizona statute provides that application for h......
- Polk Manor Co. v. Manton
-
Ex parte Fuller, 14
...§ 637.9, Stat.Ann. § 27.2252. For obvious reasons such provision has been liberally construed. In the case of In re Nowack, 274 Mich. 544, 549, 265 N.W. 459, 461, in which the petition was filed by an attorney, it was said: 'It is claimed that the attorneys had no right to sue out the petit......