Isham v. Miller

Decision Date27 December 1926
Docket Number11730.
Citation252 P. 353,80 Colo. 380
PartiesISHAM v. MILLER, Sheriff, et al.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1927.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Charles C Sackmann, Judge.

Proceeding by Alfred F. Isham for writ of habeas corpus to be directed to L. H. Miller, Sheriff of Adams county, and Franklin J Ebaugh, director of Colorado Psychopathic Hospital. Order remanding petitioner, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Fred S. Caldwell and John T. Bottom, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Harry S. Class, of Denver, Harry Behm, Co. Atty., of Brighton, and R. F. Ryan, Deputy Co. Atty., of Denver, for defendants in error.

DENISON J.

The petitioner was remanded and brings error.

Isham was arrested in Denver on process from the county court of Adams county, taken to the latter county, and tried there for lunacy. He was found insane and committed to the Colorado Psychopathic Hospital. His point here is that the county court of Adams county had no jurisdiction because he was not a resident nor found in that county.

It appears, however, that the question of his place of residence was raised and determined by the county court, which found that he was a resident of Adams county. This finding is conclusive on that point. 15 C.J. 734. Sibley v. Waffle, 16 N.Y. 180, 186, 188. It is not questioned, however, that he was taken into custody in Denver, on a writ from Adams county.

The pertinent statute is C. L. § 551. It provides that 'wherever any reputable person shall file with any county court, * * * a duly verified complaint, alleging that any person in said county' is insane, that court shall order him into custody, try him, and, if found insane, commit him.

The first question for us, therefore, is whether any one resident in a county may be said to be 'in the county,' though not physically there when taken into custody. We do not think that can be decided in the negative. We think he is in the county who is either a resident or actually found and taken into custody therein. Such a construction seems necessary to carry out the obvious purpose of this statute, which is to protect the public from the insane, and the insane man from himself and from designing persons, and to cure him, if possible. The case of Roberts v. Hense, 135 Minn. 99, 160 N.W. 198, is to the contrary, but we cannot agree with it. In the present case, the evidence before the county court was what while insane he had departed from the county of Adams, where he resided and where his wife remained. We do not think the county court of Adams county could thereby be deprived of jurisdiction.

It is urged that it was shown in the district court that the petitioner's domicile was Denver, but the findings of a court upon a question of fact cannot be questioned, in a habeas corpus proceeding in another court, even though the first court's jurisdiction depends on that fact, because thereby the court before which the habeas corpus is pending would be merely reviewing the judgment of the first court. The cases are so numerous upon this point that it is not necessary to cite them. One is People v. District Court, 22 Colo. 422, 45 P. 402.

Wherever jurisdiction of a court depends upon a question of fact, that court may try that question. Sibley v. Waffle, supra. See, also, Miller v. Weston, 67 Colo. 534, 189 P. 610; Stacks v. Industrial Commission, 65 Colo. 20, 23, 174 P. 588; Badger v. Badger, 69 Colo. 564, 196 P. 861. If the statute (C. L. § 551) did not confer jurisdiction on the county court upon the facts found by that court, questions would have arisen which, though argued, we do not think are now before us.

It is claimed that the process of the county court could not run to Denver, but in civil and criminal matters it is constantly so exercised, and we see no reason why not also in a lunacy matter.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

ALLEN, C.J., and ADAMS, J., not participating.

On Motion for Rehearing.

DENISON J.

The motion for rehearing says that we misapprehended the case by supposing that Isham had been tried for lunacy in the county court of Adams county, and his residence in Adams county is thereby determined. It now appears that he was not tried there, but the situation of the case is not altered, because it appears that upon the preliminary writ he was ordered held at the psychopathic department of the Colorado General Hospital in Denver; that upon a motion to quash for want of jurisdiction he presented his own affidavit that he for a long time past had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • People in Interest of Clinton, 87SC200
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • October 17, 1988
    ...[Denver] County" for the purpose of a statute prescribing the Denver court's jurisdiction in lunacy proceedings). Cf. Isham v. Miller, 80 Colo. 380, 252 P. 353 (1926) (a resident of Adams County can be subjected to jurisdiction of Adams County court for purposes of lunacy proceeding by serv......
  • Kelly v. Central Bank and Trust Co. of Denver
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • December 14, 1989
    ...oral argument, we consider it not properly before us and, therefore, do not decide it herein. See C.A.R. 1(d). See also Isham v. Miller, 80 Colo. 380, 252 P. 353 (1927). ...
  • Cline v. Rabson, 91CA0844
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • August 27, 1992
    ...627 P.2d 752 (Colo.1981); Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 138 Colo. 171, 330 P.2d 1116 (1958); Isham v. Miller, 80 Colo. 380, 252 P. 353 (1926) (whenever jurisdiction of a court depends upon a question of fact, that court may try that question). In determining a factual......
  • Johnson v. District Court In and For Jefferson County, 82SA381
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • November 29, 1982
    ...Denver, 138 Colo. 171, 174, 330 P.2d 1116, 1118 (1958). See also Guthrie v. Barda, 188 Colo. 124, 533 P.2d 487 (1975); Isham v. Miller, 80 Colo. 380, 252 P. 353 (1927). It may be, as the district court found, that the fact that the events alleged in the father's petition occurred in the Sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT