Gressly v. Hamilton Cnty.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1907
• Citation: 114 N.W. 191,136 Iowa 722
• Parties: GRESSLY v. HAMILTON COUNTY ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

136 Iowa 722

114 N.W. 191

GRESSLY

v.HAMILTON COUNTY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 16, 1907.

Appeal from District Court, Hamilton County; J. H. Richard, Judge.

Suit in equity to enjoin the sale of certain real estate on execution. Decree dismissing plaintiff's petition, and she appeals. Affirmed.D. C. Chase and William Whisler, for appellant.

J. M. Blake and Wesley Martin, for appellees.

DEEMER, J.

Jerry Schaffer is an inmate of one of the hospitals for the insane; and plaintiff, Kate Gressly, is his guardian. Some time in the year 1905 Hamilton county commenced an action against Schaffer and his guardian to recover the expenses of his care and keep in the hospital, alleging that there was sufficient property in the estate of Schaffer, and in the charge of his guardian, to pay the amount plaintiff had expended. Appearance to that action was made by the guardian, and, pursuant to stipulation, the case was settled, and a judgment rendered, which, so far as material reads as follows: “It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff Hamilton county have judgment against Jerry Schaffer, insane, for the sum of two thousand dollars and the costs of this action; that Kate Gressly, his guardian, is ordered and directed to pay said judgment and costs from any money or property in her hands or under her control belonging to the said Jerry Schaffer. This is not intended as an order directing a sale of property by the guardian.” The stipulation upon which it was rendered reads: “The court shall enter judgment against Jerry Schaffer in the sum of two thousand dollars, and make an order directing Kate Gressly, his guardian, to pay the same from any money or property of the said Jerry Schaffer in her hands or under her control.” Not being paid, execution issued on the judgment which was placed in the hands of defendant Thompson, as sheriff, and he levied upon certain real estate belonging to Schaffer, and had advertised the same for sale, when this action was brought to restrain the said sale. The petition in this action among other things recites: “That the said land is not subject to execution aforesaid; that it is incumbent on the plaintiff Hamilton county to make a showing as to the property in the hands of the guardian, and, if found sufficient, to then have an order for the sale of sufficient property on such order to pay the said judgment; but that no summary process can issue directly against the insane person or his property, and is contrary to law.” To this petition defendants filed a general demurrer, and this demurrer was sustained, and judgment was rendered against plaintiff for costs. Plaintiff contends, first, that no judgment may properly be entered against an insane person whose property is in the hands of a guardian; second, that if such judgment may be rendered it cannot be enforced by execution; and, third, that if neither of these propositions be true the judgment rendered in the original suit against the insane person and his guardian cannot by reason of the provisions thereof be enforced by execution. By section 2297 of the Code it is provided, in substance, that the auditors of the several counties are authorized and empowered to collect from the property of patients in insane hospitals any sum paid by the county on their behalf. Under this section it has been held that collection is to be made of the amount paid in the same manner as of any other claim: by action, judgment, and execution. See Thode v. Spoffard, 65 Iowa, 303, 17 N. W. 561, 21 N. W. 647. Even were there no such holding we should be constrained to find that the judgment rendered in the original case is good, for the reason that the guardian appeared in the action in which it was rendered, and did not object to the form of the proceedings, or move to transfer it to the probate or other court. It was good at least to the extent of being an allowance of the claim against the guardian and the estate which she represented. The judgment, however, was a personal one against an insane person, who was properly represented in the action by his guardian, and no question is made of the validity thereof. It seems to be the general rule that judgments may properly be rendered against insane persons. Walker v. Clay, 21 Ala. 797; Stigers v. Bent, 50 Md. 214, 33 Am. Rep. 317;Woods v. Brown, 93 Ind. 164, 47 Am. Rep. 369; King v. Robinson, 33 Me. 114, 54 Am. Dec. 614; Pollock v. Horn, 13 Wash. 626, 43 Pac. 885, 52 Am. St. Rep. 66;White v. Hinton, 3 Wyo. 753, 30 Pac. 953, 17 L. R. A. 66. In the instant case the insane person was represented by his guardian, who appeared for him in the district court, and there can be no question of its validity.

2. But it is argued that the judgment cannot be enforced by...