In re Moynihan
Decision Date | 12 June 1933 |
Docket Number | 32713 |
Citation | 62 S.W.2d 410,332 Mo. 1022 |
Parties | Ex Parte Edward J. Higgins, for Mary E. Moynihan, Petitioner, v. Emmett F. Hoctor |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Petitioner remanded.
Hudson Waxelman & Higgins for petitioner.
(1) In a proceeding to declare a person insane or of unsound mind all of the statutory and constitutional requirements must be fully complied with before she can legally be declared insane. Powell v. State of Alabama, 53 S.Ct. 65; State ex rel. Townsend v. Mueller, 51 S.W.2d 8; State ex rel. Terry v. Holtkamp, 51 S.W.2d 13; Citizens State Bank v. Shanklin, 174 Mo.App. 629; State v. Duncan, 195 Mo.App. 541; In re Marquis, 85 Mo. 615; Dutcher v. Hill, 29 Mo 271. (2) In not calling a jury to try the issues in the proceedings to have the petitioner declared of unsound mind or insane, the judge of the St. Louis County Probate Court deprived your petitioner of her constitutional rights, and the action of the court in trying the case without the aid of a jury is void. Amend. XIV, U.S. Constitution; Amend. V, U.S Constitution; Sec. 28, Art. II, Mo. Constitution; Sec. 30, Art. II, Mo. Constitution; State ex rel. Peper v. Holtcamp, 235 Mo. 237; State ex rel. v. Baird, 47 Mo. 201; Kienne v. Wessell, 53 Mo.App. 667.
Roy McKittrick, Attorney-General, Wm. Orr Sawyers and Denton Dunn, Assistant Attorney-Generals, for respondent.
(1) While statutory and constitutional requirements must be complied with in proceedings of inquiry as to the sanity of a person, the judgment of the probate court, having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and of the person by statutory notice duly served, was presumptively correctly rendered, and is not subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus, or otherwise, for any error not appearing on the fact of the record. National Board v. Fry, 293 Mo. 409. (2) An insanity inquiry is a civil proceeding (State v. Holtcamp, 235 Mo. 238), and a jury is not required therein, unless called for or demanded by the parties, or one of them, that is, either the informant, or the party whose sanity is being inquired into, must call for or demand a jury, if one is wanted, as the perfectly valid Sections 448 to 452, Revised Statutes 1929, properly provide. State ex rel. v. Guinotte, 257 Mo. 11. It is only in felony cases that a defendant cannot waive a jury (State v. Talken, 316 Mo. 600), and to secure a trial by jury in a civil case a jury must be demanded. Hecker v. Bleish, 327 Mo. 377, 385, 37 S.W.2d 444; Bratshi v. Loesch, 51 S.W.2d 71. (3) The right to trial by jury as "heretofore enjoyed," meaning at common law at the time of the adoption of our Constitution or that of the United States, certainly does not put insanity inquests in the same class as prosecutions for felonies.
Hyde, C. Ferguson and Sturgis, CC., concur.
This is an application to this court for writ of habeas corpus. The application for writ, made by the attorneys for Mary E. Moynihan, states that she is unlawfully deprived of her liberty by the superintendent of the State Insane Hospital No. 4 at Farmington, Missouri. The writ was issued and it is shown by the return of the superintendent of the State Insane Hospital and the reply thereto of petitioner and the certified copies of the record attached to these pleadings that as stated in the statement in petitioner's brief:
This arrest was made pursuant to the following order of the probate court, made July 17, 1931:
"Complaint of Michael J. Moynihan having been made to the Probate Court of the County of St. Louis that the above named Mary E. Moynihan is so far disordered in her mind as to endanger her own person, and the person or property of others, and has no guardian, and is not in the care or charge of any person, and that the court having heard testimony in regard to the facts complained of, does consider, adjudge, decree, order and direct that said Mary E. Moynihan be apprehended, restrained and confined in the State Hospital No. 4, Farmington, Missouri, and that the sheriff of this county shall apprehend said Mary E. Moynihan and deliver her at the said State Hospital No. 4, Farmington, Missouri, to the Superintendent thereof and that the said Superintendent be and he is hereby directed and empowered to confine her until the further order of this court."
Thereafter, on July 20, 1931, the following order was also made by the County Court of St. Louis County:
The probate court evidently acted under authority of Sections 498, 499, Revised Statutes 1929, and the county court under Sections 8645-9, Revised Statutes 1929. These latter sections were enacted in 1909 (see Laws 1909, pp. 587-8) evidently to give the county court the duty of caring for indigent persons found to be insane. [See, also, Secs. 451 and 454, R. S. 1929; Redmond v. Q. O. & K. C. Railroad Co., 225 Mo. 721, 126 S.W. 159.]
As further stated in petitioner's brief:
The judgment of the probate court, as shown by its record, was as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zickel v. Knell
... ... 578, 108 S.W.2d 66; Blattel v ... Stallings, 346 Mo. 450, 142 S.W.2d 9; Vannoy v ... Swift & Co., 201 S.W.2d 350; Hancock v. State ... Highway Comm., 347 Mo. 944, 149 S.W.2d 823; In re ... Opel's Estate, 352 Mo. 592, 179 S.W.2d 1; In re ... Helm's Estate, 136 S.W.2d 416; In re ... Moynihan, 332 Mo. 1022, 62 S.W.2d 410; In re ... Wild's Estate, 90 S.W.2d 804; In re Claus ... Estate, 147 S.W. 199. (3) The case was properly triable ... in equity, as it sought a dissolution of a partnership ... between parties occupying a fiduciary relationship, the ... taking of a long and ... ...
-
Lucas v. Manufacturing Lumbermen's Underwriters
... ... 41, 26 S.W.2d 773; State ex ... rel. Mo. State Life Ins. Co. v. Hall, 330 Mo. 1107, 52 ... S.W.2d 174; State ex rel. St. Louis v. Priest, 152 ... S.W.2d 109; State ex rel. Johnson v. Clark, 288 Mo ... 659, 232 S.W. 1031; St. Joseph v. Farrell, 106 Mo ... 437; In re Moynihan, 332 Mo. 1022, 62 S.W.2d 410, 91 ... A. L. R. 74; Waterman v. Chicago Bridge & Iron ... Works, 328 Mo. 688, 697, 41 S.W.2d 575, 578; Spotts ... v. Spotts, 331 Mo. 917, 922, 55 S.W.2d 977, 983, 87 A ... L. R. 660, 671; Hartwell v. Parks, 240 Mo. 537, 545, ... 144 S.W. 793, 795; State ... ...
- State ex rel. Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. Coleman
- State ex rel. Kowats v. Arnold