People v. Niesman

Citation356 Ill. 322,190 N.E. 668
Decision Date06 June 1934
Docket NumberNo. 22051.,22051.
PartiesPEOPLE v. NIESMAN.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Thomas M. Jett, Judge.

Joseph Niesman was adjudged a feebleminded person and was ordered committed to the State School and Colony, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

J. D. Wilson, of Nokomis, and J. E. Hogan, of Taylorville, for plaintiff in error.

Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., George A. Hall, State's Atty., of Litchfield, J. J. Neiger, of Springfield, and Carl H. Preihs, of Pana, for the People.

DE YOUNG, Justice.

Oscar E. Hagemeier, Henry Zeifang, and Henry Bruns, three residents of Montgomery county, filed a petition in the circuit court of that county for an inquiry into the mental condition of Joseph Niesman. After a hearing upon the petition, Niesman was adjudged a feeble-minded person, and he was ordered committed to the State School and Colony at Lincoln. He prosecutes this writ of error for a review of the record.

The proceeding was instituted under the act to provide for the care and detention of feeble-minded persons, approved June 24, 1915. Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1931, p. 311, c. 23, § 346 et seq.; Cahill's Rev. St. 1931, p. 270, c. 23, par. 166 et seq. Section 1 of the act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1931, c. 23, § 346) provides that the words ‘feeble-minded persons' shall be construed to mean any person afflicted with mental defectiveness from birth or from an early age, so pronounced that he is incapable of managing himself and his affairs, or of being taught to do so, who requires supervision, control, and care for the welfare of himself, of other persons or of the community, and who is not classifiable as an insane person within the meaning of the act to revise the law in relation to the commitment and detention of lunatics, and to provide for the appointment and removal of conservators, approved June 21, 1893.

The third section of the act (section 348) authorizes the institution of a proceeding to determine the mental condition of a resident of this state supposed to be feeble-minded, who, by reason of that condition, and the want of proper care, control, supervision, and support, or other causes, if permitted to remain at large, may be dangerous to the welfare of the community. In such a case, any relative, guardian, or conservator, or any reputable citizen of the state, upon leave obtained, may file with the clerk of the circuit or the county court, a petition in writing, setting forth, among other things, the feeble-mindedness of the person named, and the circumstances of his untoward social conditions, whereby it is unsafe for him to be at large without care and supervision. The petition shall also set forth the name and place of residence of some person actually supervising, caring for, or supporting the alleged unfortunate and of at least one person, if any there be, legally chargeable with such supervision, care, and support. Verification of the petition is required, although it may be based upon information and belief. All persons named in the petition shall be made defendants and notified of the proceeding by the service of process.

Section 4 (section 349) provides that the summons shall require all defendants to appear personally at the time and place stated therein and to bring into court the alleged feeble-minded person. Section 7 (section 352) urquires that the hearing on the petition shall be by the court and a commission of two qualified physicians or one such physician and a qualified psychologist, residents of the county, to be selected by the judge on account of their known competency and integrity, and that evidence shall be heard and proceedings had as in any other civil cause. The commission is charged with the duty of making a personal examination respecting the mental condition of the alleged feeble-minded person, and upon the conclusion of the hearing, inquiry, and examination, to file with the clerk of the court a report in writing showing the result of the examination and setting forth the commission's conclusions and recommendations. Section[356 Ill. 325]8 (section 353) provides that the report shall have the same effect as the report of a master in chancery, and that the court may set it aside, dismiss the proceeding, order a new hearing by the same or a new commission or make such findings of fact in lieu of the findings in the report as may be justified by the evidence heard. The ninth section provides that, if the court shall find the petition sustained, it shall enter a decree appointing a suitable person guardian of the feeble-minded person or directing that he be sent to a qualified and licensed private institution or be placed in an appropriate public institution. The act contains many additional provisions, but they need not be stated for the purposes of this review.

Prior to the introduction of evidence, two motions were made on behalf of Joseph Niesman, the plaintiff in error, the first, to dismiss the petition, because, it was asserted, the act which authorized the proceeding violated the due process provisions of the state and Federal Constitutions, and, the second, to impanel a jury to determine the issues of fact in the cause. Both motions were denied. The only grounds urged for a reversal of the decree are that the circuit court erred in denying these motions.

The provision of section 1 of the Fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, and the second section of the bill of rights of the state Constitution, that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, are invoked to sustain the first contention. Due process of law implies the administration of equal laws according to established rules, not violative of the fundamental principles of private right, by a competent tribunal having jurisdiction of the case and proceeding upon notice and hearing. McGehee on Due Process of Law, p. 1. The guaranty of due process of law requiresthat every man shall have the protection of his day in court and the benefit of the general law,-a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds not arbitrarily or capriciously, but upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial, so that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312, 42 S. Ct. 124, 66 L. Ed. 254, 27 A. L. R. 375;Simon v. Craft, 182 U. S. 427, 21 S. Ct. 836, 45 L. Ed. 1165;Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 4 S. Ct. 111, 28 L. Ed. 232; Ex parte Wall, 107 U. S. 265, 2 S. Ct. 569, 27 L. Ed. 552. An orderly proceeding in which a person is served with notice,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Griffin v. Cook Cnty.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 21 Octubre 1938
    ...of the general revenue statutes of Illinois, is sufficient to comply with the constitutional requirement of notice. In People v. Niesman, 356 Ill. 322, 190 N.E. 668, we said [page 670]: ‘The guaranty of due process of law requires that every man shall have the protection of his day in court......
  • Interstate Bankers Cas. Co. v. Hernandez
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 18 Diciembre 2013
    ...or statutory proceedings unknown to the common law.” ’ People ex rel. Keith v. Keith, 38 Ill.2d 405, 408 (1967), quoting People v. Niesman, 356 Ill. 322, 327 (1934).” (Emphasis omitted.) Reed, 188 Ill.2d at 179–80, 242 Ill.Dec. 97, 720 N.E.2d 1052. ¶ 11 Plaintiffs argue generally that secti......
  • Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 22 Septiembre 1994
    ...unknown to the common law.' " People ex rel. Keith v. Keith (1967), 38 Ill.2d 405, 408, 231 N.E.2d 387, quoting People v. Niesman (1934), 356 Ill. 322, 327, 190 N.E. 668. On the other hand, the Federal Constitution provides: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exce......
  • Reed v. Farmers Ins. Group
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 21 Octubre 1999
    ...unknown to the common law.'" People ex rel. Keith v. Keith, 38 Ill.2d 405, 408, 231 N.E.2d 387 (1967), quoting People v. Niesman, 356 Ill. 322, 327, 190 N.E. 668 (1934). The plaintiff also contends that the arbitration statute creates a system of fee officers, in violation of article VI, se......
  • 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