Porter v. Ritch

• Decision Date: 05 January 1898
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: PORTER v. RITCH et al.

39 A. 169

70 Conn. 235

PORTER

v. RITCH et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 5, 1898.

Appeal from superior court, Fairfield county; Samuel O. Prentice, Judge.

Action by Timothy H. Porter against Thomas G. Ritch and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The complaint in this action is in three counts. The gist of the whole action is that the defendants conspired together to obtain from the plaintiff a very large sum of money, and that, in pursuance of such conspiracy, they made a false and malicious complaint to the judge of probate in the district of Stamford, in which district the plaintiff resided, therein representing that the plaintiff was insane and unfit to go at large, and obtained from the said judge an order that the plaintiff be committed to the custody of two of the defendants; that by reason of the said order they arrested the plaintiff, and kept him in imprisonment for three months, and until they had extorted from him more than $100,000 in money; that by reason of said imprisonment the plaintiff was greatly injured in his health. All the acts for which relief is sought in the complaint were done in the procuring or execution of the said order, and the conspiracy in pursuance of which it is alleged such acts were committed. The answer is in four defenses. There are four separate defenses, either one of which, if sustained, would defeat the plaintiff's action. They are the general issue; a plea in bar, which sets up a lawful order of the court of probate, in obedience to which all the acts were done; a former judgment; and a discharge. Summarizing all the facts of the answer, and putting them into one connected story, it is this:

On the 18th day of December, 1893, Schuyler Merritt, one of the defendants, acting in good faith, and fully believing that the plaintiff was an insane person, and that the safety of himself and of others required that he should be placed under restraint, or into the care and custody of some suitable person, made an application to the court of probate in the district of Stamford as follows, as appears by the records of said court: "In the Matter of the Complaint of Schuyler Merritt, for a Hearing, Regarding the Alleged Insanity of Timothy H. Porter. To the Honorable H. Stanley Finch, a Judge of Probate within and for the Probate District of Stamford, in the County of Fairfield, and State of Connecticut: The complaint of Schuyler Merritt, of said town of Stamford, in said county and state, respectfully shows: That Timothy H. Porter, now and for many years last past a resident of said Stamford, is now and has for a long time past been insane, and is a fit subject to be confined in an asylum. Wherefore your complainant prays your honor to inquire into the alleged insanity of the said Timothy H. Porter, and whether he is a fit subject to be confined in an asylum. Dated at Stamford, this 18th day of December, 1893. Schuyler Merritt." The said court of probate thereupon made an order that a hearing be had on said application at the probate office on the 26th day of December, 1893, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, and that notice of the time and place of hearing, together with a copy of said application, be served on the said Timothy H. Porter, on or before the 19th day of December, 1893. The said Schuyler Merritt at the same time presented to the said court of probate the affidavit of Dr. Henry P. Geib, as follows: "In the Matter of the Complaint of Schuyler Merritt as to the Alleged Insanity of Timothy H. Porter. I hereby certify that on the 14th and 15th days of December, 1893, I made a personal examination of Timothy H. Porter, of said Stamford, and from my knowledge of his case, having been his physician for a long time, and from the facts that have come to my knowledge regarding his condition, I am of the opinion that he is insane, and that he is unfit to go at large, and is a fit subject for confinement in an asylum or other suitable place of detention, for in my judgment he is suffering from post-paralytic de mentia, and his disease is at that stage where he might at any time be seized with homicidal mania, thereby endangering the lives of those with whom he might be thrown in contact, as well as his own. Dated at Stamford, this 18th day of December. 1893. Henry P. Geib." This affidavit was sworn to before competent authority, and the court issued an order as follows: "In the Matter of the Complaint of Schuyler Merritt Regarding Timothy H. Porter, a Supposed Lunatic. It is hereby ordered that, pending the proceedings for a hearing and an examination on the foregoing complaint, the care and custody of the said Timothy H. Porter is hereby committed to Richard Bolster and Henry E. Schock, judicious and proper persons for that purpose, who shall confine the said Timothy H. Porter, under suitable and proper restraint, in his home in said Stamford, until said hearing and until further order is made. Dated at Stamford, this 18th day of December, 1893. H. Stanley Finch, Judge of the Court of Probate for the District of Stamford." In company with a proper officer, and with these papers, the said Bolster and Schock on said day went to the house of the plaintiff. The officer served the said order of notice, and thereafter Bolster and Schock made known to the plaintiff the order by which the care and custody of his person was committed to them. Acting on that order, and in the belief that it was a lawful one, and that the plaintiff was an insane person, they remained during the time named in the complaint in the home of the plaintiff, keeping him under suitable and proper restraint, and kept such watch of his movements as was necessary to prevent him from destroying property or doing injury to himself or others; but at no time did they, or either of them, assault him, or use any force upon his person, or offer him any indignity or incivility. On the 19th day of December, 1893, the plaintiff prayed out from the superior court in Fairfield county a writ of habeas corpus against the present defendants Merritt, Bolster, Schock, and Louis H. Porter, a son of the plaintiff. This writ required the said persons to appear before the said superior court on the 21st day of December, 1893. At that time all the respondents named in said writ appeared before the superior court. The said Merritt and Louis H. Porter made return denying all the allegations of the plaintiff's application, so far as they were charged. The said Bolster and Schock made return setting out all the said proceedings of the said probate court, and assigned the same as the cause of their detention and imprisonment of the plaintiff. To this latter return the plaintiff made reply, denying the jurisdiction of the probate court to make the order, and alleging that the order was void on its face, that it was made without hearing, was unreasonable etc. To this reply the said Bolster and Schock demurred. The superior court found the issue for the said Merritt and Porter, that they had "not in any manner detained or restrained the plaintiff [said complainant], or deprived him of his liberty," and also sustained the demurrer by said Bolster and Schock to the reply of the plaintiff to their return, and upon the issue formed by said demurrer found that the said judge of the court of probate had jurisdiction of the proceedings set forth in the said return of said Bolster and Schock, and possessed the power under the statute law of the state to make the order set forth therein placing the plaintiff in the care and custody of the said Bolster and Schock, pending the proceedings for a hearing and examination, as therein mentioned, and that said order was reasonable, and remanded the prisoner to the care and custody of the said Bolster and Schock to be held by them under the said order. Prom the judgment on this latter issue an appeal was taken by the plaintiff to the supreme court of errors, but no appeal was taken from the judgment on the issue made by the return of the said Merritt and Porter. On the same day—i. e. the 19th day of December, 1893—an application was made to the court of probate in the district of Stamford by Louis H. Porter, Blachley H. Porter, and Arthur K. Porter, minor sons of the plaintiff, by their next friend, Schuyler Merritt, praying for the appointment of a conservator over said plaintiff, on the ground that he was mentally unsound, and incapable of managing his affairs, which application was duly served and returned, and the said probate court ordered the same to be heard before the court on the 3d day of January, 1894. By reason of the said habeas corpus proceedings in the superior court, and the appeal to the supreme court, the several matters and applications in the probate court were continued from time to time, until they were all finally terminated as is hereafter stated. On the 21st day of December, 1893, the plaintiff brought a complaint in the superior court in Fairfield county against the said Merritt, Bolster, Schock, and Louis H. Porter, praying that they and each of them be enjoined from interfering with his books and papers, and for other relief, upon which a temporary injunction was issued by a judge of the superior court, which, with the said complaint, was served on the persons therein named as defendants. On the 2d day of January, 1894, Schuyler Merritt and Thomas G. Ritch, executors of the last will of Louisa H. Porter, the deceased wife of the plaintiff, and trustee under the same, and Louis H. Porter, Blachley H. Porter, and Arthur K. Porter, being persons interested in the said will, brought their complaint to the superior court in Fairfield county, alleging that the plaintiff was wasting and conveying away the property of the said estate, and demanding $250,000 damages. The complaint was served and returned to the said superior court. On the 21st day of February, 1894, while all the said suits, applications, actions, and appeals...