Knox v. Haug

• Decision Date: 18 January 1892
• Citation: 48 Minn. 58,50 N.W. 934
• Parties: KNOX v HAUG.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

48 Minn. 58

50 N.W. 934

KNOXvHAUG.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 18, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The proceedings under Gen. St. 1878, c. 35, § 21, are not evidence of mental incapacity to make contracts on the part of the person committed to the hospital for insane.

Appeal from district court, St. Louis county; ENSIGN, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth M. Knox against Martin Haug to determine a right to certain real estate. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

White, Reynolds & Schmidt, for appellant.

Cash & Williams, for respondent.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

The contest in this case is between plaintiff, as grantee in a deed from one McLennan, executed July 12, 1876, but not recorded till October 10, 1889, and defendant, as grantee in a deed from the same grantor, executed February 26, 1886, and recorded June 21, 1886. Plaintiff assails this deed on the ground that when he executed it the grantor was insane. To prove this he introduced on the trial proceedings before the judge of probate in St. Louis county, had under Gen. St. 1878, c. 35, § 21, in which on November 12, 1885, McLennan was committed to the hospital for the insane at St. Peter, as an insane person needing care and treatment. It was also proved that February 4, 1886, he was, by the superintendent of the hospital, permitted to leave it under charge of his friends, and May 5th following was legally discharged from it. This was the only evidence on the question of his mental capacity to execute the deed to defendant. The question in the case is as to the effect of these proceedings, as evidence of McLennan's incompetency to execute the deed to defendant. At the common law an inquisition finding one a lunatic upon the writ de lunatico inquirendo was evidence of his lunacy as to any one and in collateral proceedings; and plaintiff claims that the finding upon the proceeding before the probate judge is the same in effect as such inquisition. The section of statute referred to authorizes the judge of probate, or, in his absence, the court commissioner, upon information being filed before him that there is an insane person in his county needing care and treatment, to cause the person so alleged to be insane to be examined by a jury of two respectable persons, besides himself, one, at least, of whom shall be a physician, to ascertain the fact of his insanity, and, if he is found to be insane, the judge or commissioner shall, “upon a written certificate of the judge directed by a majority of the jury,” issue duplicate warrants, committing the person so found insane to the care of the superintendent of the hospital. The provisions of this statute are notable for their simplicity, but hardly to be commended as guarding against abuse. Certainly a court would not, by construction, enlarge its scope or the effect of the proceeding. Chapter 59, § 8, provides that the probate court may appoint a guardian or guardians of any person who, by reason of old age, or loss or imperfection of mental faculties, is incompetent to have the charge or management of his property, and...