Rickey v. People
| Citation | 129 Colo. 174,267 P.2d 1021 |
| Decision Date | 08 March 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 17310,17310 |
| Parties | RICKEY v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Ben Slosky, Nathan I. Golden, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunber, Atty. Gen., Frank A. Wachob, Dep. Atty. Gen., Patricia H. Maloy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
John C. Banks, Jane Woodhouse, Denver, amici curiae.
A petition to set aside and vacate all orders entered in a lunacy proceeding in the county court of the City and County of Denver was denied and the ruling of the court thereon is assigned as error. Error is confessed by the Attorney General, who appears for the People under constitutional and statutory direction. Leave was asked and granted for the filing of a brief of amici curiae. The petition to vacate the order was presented and argued on the ground that the county court was without jurisdiction.
Shortly prior to May 25, 1953, plaintiff in error, who will be referred to as Rickey, a resident of Elbert county, Colorado, came to Denver to visit his sister, Mrs. Maro Brown. He is the owner of between three and four thousand acres of land in Elbert county and has considerable interests that require his attention. He appeared to be a bit emotionally disturbed; his sister and brother-in-law tried to prevail upon him to see a doctor; he finally voluntarily entered Mt. Airy Sanitarium on May 25, 1953 for whatever examination and treatment might be necessary. The superintendent, after a fifteen-minute visit with, and observation of, him reported that he was so insane and distracted in mind as to be a possible danger to himself or others if he was allowed to remain at large in the community. A letter from Dr. J. P. Hilton, who had attended Rickey a year or more before, was obtained to the same effect, stating that he was unable to take care of himself or his affairs because of schizophrenia. On June 9, 1953, the brother-in-law, Maro Brown, filed a complaint in the county court wherein it was stated that respondent Rickey was a resident of Kutch, Colorado; that he was, (1) so insane or distracted in his mind as to endanger his own person or property, or the person or property of another, or others, if allowed to go at large; (2) is, by reason of old age, disease, weakness of Mind, feebleness of mind or _____, incapable, unassisted, to properly manage and take care of himself of his property, and therefore would be likely to be deceived or imposed upon by artful or designing persons; and prayed that an inquiry be had as provided by law. This complaint was verified and accompanied by a letter from the city attorney requesting the permission for Brown to file the complaint, and it further was accompanied by the letter of Dr. Hilton above referred to. On that day the county court issued its order to the ex-officio sheriff of the City and County of Denver to take Rickey, who was residing at Mt. Airy, into custody, and to confine him there until further order of the court, pending the determination of the inquiry, and to deliver a copy of the complaint and order to respondent. Following this on the 12th day of June, the court appointed a commission to examine Rickey and a guardian ad litem also was appointed. The record shows proper service on Rickey and the guardian ad litem. On the 23rd day of June 1953, a hearing and inquiry was held by the commission at Mt. Airy Sanitarium; the commission filed its report with the county court on the same day, wherein it found and stated the residence of Rickey to be Kutch, Colorado; that the commission answered the statutory questions required to be answered in such report as follows:
'1. Is the person complained against so insane or distracted in his mind as to endanger his own person or property, or the person or property of another, or others, if allowed to go at large? Answer Yes.
'2. Is such person by reason of old age, disease, weakness of mind, or from any other cause, incapable, unassisted, to properly manage and take care of himself or his property? Answer Yes.
'3. Is such person so mentally defective as to be incompetent to care for himself of his property? Answer No.
'4. Does said person have any personal or real estate? Answer Yes.
* * *
* * *
'Description of behavior of said person which necessitated the commitment Schizophrenia'.
On the same day the court entered its order of adjudication and commitment or custody, and found therein that Rickey's place of residence was Kutch, Colorado; that he was so insane or distracted in his mind as to endanger his own person or property, or the person or property of another, or others, if allowed to go at large; and is by reason of old age, disease, weakness of mind, or from _____ incapable, unassisted, to properly manage and take care of himself; approved the findings of the commission; and thereupon committed him to the custody of his mother, Mrs. Cora Rickey at Kutch, Colorado, until further order of the court.
On June 26 following, motion for trial by jury was filed, accompanied by a petition seeking to vacate all orders and findings theretofore made for the reason that Rickey was not a resident of the City and County of Denver, but is a bona fide resident of Elbert county, State of Colorado. A similar petition was filed by Rickey's counsel on July 3 on the ground that the court was without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People in Interest of Clinton, 87SC200
...P.2d 133 (1954) (failure to serve process properly prevents court from acquiring jurisdiction in lunacy proceeding); Rickey v. People, 129 Colo. 174, 267 P.2d 1021 (1954) (failure to allege facts showing satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements on face of complaint prevents Denver county......
-
Conservatorship of Clayton, In re
...found in their territorial jurisdiction. In re Estate of Mosier, 246 Cal.App.2d 164, 54 Cal.Rptr. 447, 449 (1961); Rickey v. People, 129 Colo. 174, 267 P.2d 1021, 1024 (1954); Sorrells v. Sorrells, 247 Ga. 9, 274 S.E.2d 314, 316-17 (Ga.1981); In re Oelerich's Estate, 31 Ill.App.2d 457, 176 ......
-
Blevins v. Cook
...6 N.J.Super. 572, 70 A.2d 797; Shields v. Shields, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 211; Kendall v. People, 126 Colo. 573, 252 P.2d 91; Rickey v. People, 129 Colo. 174, 267 P.2d 1021; Snyder v. Superior Court, 206 Cal. 346, 274 P. 337. The reasons for so holding in this type of case are equally, if indeed ......
-
Marriage of Nichols, In re, 75--597
...derives from the statute, the court may only exercise the powers granted. Iwerks v. People, 130 Colo. 86, 273 P.2d 133; Rickey v. People, 129 Colo. 174, 267 P.2d 1021. The court here fully exercised its power to apportion when it ordered each party to pay his own costs and The validity of a......
-
Pre-trial Technical Defenses to Mental Health Certification
...P.2d 629, 631 (Colo.App. 1986) and CRS § 27-10-111(4.5). 16. Iwerks v. People, 130 Colo. 86, 273 P.2d 133, 135 (1954); Rickey v. People, 129 Colo. 174, 267 P.2d 1021, 1024 (1954); Barber, supra, note 8; Kendall v. People, 126 Colo. 573, 252 P.2d 91, 94 (1952); Okerberg v. People, 119 Colo. ......
-
The Clinton Mental Health Case-a Civil Procedure Lesson
...9. Lynch, supra, note 2 at 851. 10. Clinton, supra, note 1 at 1384. 11. 273 P.2d 133 (Colo. 1954). 12. 252 P.2d 91 (Colo. 1952). 13. 267 P.2d 1021 (Colo. 1954). 14. Clinton, supra, note 1 at 1385. 15. Id. at 1387. 16. See, C.R.C.P Rule 3(a). 17. Lynch, supra, note 2 at 852. 18. Id. 19. Id. ......
-
Clinton Redux: a Mental Health and Technical Defense Follow-up
...No. 92CA1359, annc'd 7/1/93). 16. See Dveirin, supra, note 10. 17. 236 P. 995, 77 Colo. 310 (1925). 18. 273 P.2 173 (Colo. 1954). 19. 267 P.2d 1021 (Colo. 1954). 20. 252 P.2d 91 (Colo. 1953). 21. Supra, note 7 at 1312. Column Ed.: Daniel Taubman, Colorado Court of Appeals, Denver---(303) 83......