Schantz v. Ruehs, 16
| Decision Date | 10 June 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 16,16 |
| Citation | 83 N.W.2d 587,348 Mich. 680 |
| Parties | Addison SCHANTZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ernest RUEHS and Dr. Clarence M. Schrier, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Edward James Kenney, Jr., Benton Harbor, for plaintiff and appellant.
Thomas M. Kavanagh, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Daniel J. O'Hara, Perry A. Maynard, Asst.Atty. Gen., for Clarence M. Schrier.
Rom & Newton Dilley, Grand Rapids, for Ernest Ruehs, Guardian, appellee.
Before the Entire Bench.
This is an appeal from a court's dismissal of a bill of complaint in equity on defendants' motion without hearing on the merits.
On appeal from such a dismissal, we take all well-pleaded facts in plaintiff's bill of complaint as true. Witt v. Tourn-A-Grip Co., 330 Mich. 151, 47 N.W.2d 57; Stone v. Yost, 319 Mich. 323, 29 N.W.2d 777.
Plaintiff's allegations include:
(1) That he was committed to the Kalamazoo State hospital by order of the probate court of Kent county as mentally ill;
(2) That he is currently confined therein, and defendant Schrier, medical superintendent of the hospital, refuses to release him;
(3) That his commitment was illegal and void because the probate judge appointed 3 physicians to examine him rather than 2 as required by statute (C.L.1948, §§ 330.20, 330.21 [Stat.Ann.1956 Rev. §§ 14.810, 14.811]);
(4) That the medical certificates were legally insufficient to warrant plaintiff's commitment (5) That following his commitment, the probate judge appointed defendant Ruehs as guardian of his person and estate;
(6) That the guardianship order was illegal and void because based on the void commitment referred to above;
(7) That if he is released from the commitment referred to in the present proceedings, he will need money from his estate for living expenses, and that defendant Ruehs' action in retaining legal counsel for unspecified purposes menaces the availability of such funds.
Plaintiff seeks, on the basis of the allegations above, a decree holding his commitment and the order of guardianship null and void and restraining defendant Ruehs from any disbursements from the estate.
The proceeding was brought under a temporary order of the circuit court of Kalamazoo county appointing plaintiff's counsel as next friend.
The attorney general, representing defendant Schrier, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law.
After hearing on the motion and a colloquy with plaintiff's counsel wherein he agreed that the attack upon the guardianship in his bill of complaint was based solely on his claim that the original commitment was void, Judge Sweet granted the motion to dismiss. The judge said: (You have an adequate remedy. You had the remedy of habeas corpus.'
On consideration of such well-pleaded facts as are available from this record, we affirm the ruling of the chancellor.
Plaintiff's search for his freedom may be prosecuted at law in 1 or more of the following ways:
(1) By attacking the original proceeding as void on the grounds stated in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. C.L.1948, § 637.7 (Stat.Ann. § 27.2250); Palmer v. Kalamazoo Circuit Judge, 83 Mich. 528, 47 N.W. 355; In re Fuller, 334 Mich. 566, 55 N.W.2d 96; 28 Am.Jur., Insane and other incompetent persons § 38.
(2) By seeking delayed appeal (within a year) from the commitment order. C.L.1948, §§ 701.43, 701.44 (Stat.Ann.1943 Rev. §§ 27.3178, 27.3178).
(3) By petition for finding of restoration of mental competency. C.L.S.1954, § 330.39 (Stat.Ann.1956 Rev. § 14.829).
In the bill of complaint the sole attack on the guardianship is the allegation that the original commitment cproceedings were void. This is not a well-pleaded fact which we accept as true under the cited rule. This is a legal conclusion to be arrived at after trial of the issue in a proper proceeding.
It is the general rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Buren Public School Dist. v. Wayne County Circuit Judge
...Tenure Commission, 367 Mich. 689, 693, 117 N.W.2d 181 (1962), and that he does not have an adequate remedy at law, Schantz v. Ruehs, 348 Mich. 680, 683, 83 N.W.2d 587 (1957). However, the union met this burden in the instant The union members were threatened with irreparable harm. Had Van B......
-
Paschke v. Retool Industries
...in later worker's compensation or civil proceedings.1 Hoffman v. Burkhammer, 373 Mich. 187, 128 N.W.2d 503 (1964); Schantz v. Ruehs, 348 Mich. 680, 83 N.W.2d 587 (1957); Ramirez v. Bureau of State Lottery, 186 Mich.App. 275, 463 N.W.2d 245 (1990).2 See Diss. op. at pp. 453-55.1 A different ......
-
Arnold v. Ellis
...there is an adequate remedy at law. Weinhardt v. Addison Community Schools (1957), 347 Mich. 683, 81 N.W.2d 240; Schantz v. Ruehs (1957), 348 Mich. 680, 83 N.W.2d 587; Sovereign v. Sovereign (1958), 354 Mich. 65, 92 N.W.2d 585. It is also true, however, that an 'owner of realty is entitled ......
-
Michigan State Employees Ass'n v. Department of Mental Health, Docket No. 55016
...was not immediately available, which is a major consideration in determining the adequacy of any legal remedy. Schantz v. Ruehs, 348 Mich. 680, 683, 83 N.W.2d 587 (1957); Van Buren Public School Dist. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 61 Mich.App. 6, 17, 232 N.W.2d 278 (1975). Other Michigan cases ha......