Shapter v. Pillar

Citation28 Colo. 209,63 P. 302
PartiesSHAPTER v. PILLAR.
Decision Date22 December 1900
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Error to Arapahoe county court.

Application by Charles Piller to have Edward Shapter adjudged a lunatic. From a judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition, Edward Shapter brings error. Reversed.

From a judgment adjudging plaintiff in error so insane or distracted in mind as to render him incapable of property or safely attending to or managing his estate, and appointing a conservator for that purpose, he brings the case here on error. He is about 65 years of age, and has been afflicted with shaking palsy for over 10 years last past, which has rendered him quite feeble physically, affected his power of speech, and, to some extent, impaired his mental faculties. He has an estate valued at between $25,000 and $30,000, which consists principally of realty in the city of Denver. The statute under which the proceeding was had is as follows 'Whenever any reputable person shall file with the county court * * * a complaint, duly verified, and shall allege therein that any person in such county is a lunatic or an insane person, and is so distracted in mind as to render such person incapable of properly and safely attending to his affairs or managing his estate, * * * the court, if satisfied that there is a good cause for the exercise of its jurisdiction, shall thereupon order a jury * * * to be summoned to inquire into such facts. * * * If it shall be alleged in said complaint and proved to the satisfaction of the court that said lunatic or insane person has personal or real estate, and if the jury shall return in their verdict that such person is so insane or distracted in mind as to render him or her incapable of managing his or her estate, it shall be the duty of said county court to appoint some fit person to be the conservator of said estate.' Mills' Ann. St. § 2935, amended by Laws 1893, p. 331. Over the objection of plaintiff in error, several witnesses, both professional and nonprofessional, were asked to give an opinion regarding his capability of properly or carefully managing his business affairs; the answer in each instance being, in the opinion of the witness, that he was incapable.

E. T. Wells, M. F. Taylor, and R. T. McNeal, for plaintiff in error.

George A. Smith, for defendant in error.

Andrew W. Gillette, amicus curiae.

GABBERT J. (after stating the facts).

It is suggested by counsel amicus curiae, that, the plaintiff in error having been adjudged incapable of managing his own affairs, this proceeding should be dismissed, for the reason that the cannot now prosecute a cause, except through the intervention of a guardian or next friend; or, if this is not the correct view, we should require him to be brought into our presence for the purpose of ascertaining his mental condition, and capability of electing to prosecute the writ of error in this case. The constitution provides (article 6, § 23) that writs of error shall lie from the supreme court to every final judgment of the county court. Ordinarily, it is true that one adjudged non compos mentis can only act through a recognized representative; but this is not the case where the very object of the action is to determine the legality of the judgment adjudging him incapable of managing his own affairs. In the original proceeding he is entitled to be heard, appear by counsel, and produce witnesses, and, although the judgment of the trial court may be that the management of his estate should be taken out of his hands, he is entitled to be heard touching the validity of such proceedings. In re Moss (Cal.) 53 P. 357. So long as the action for that purpose is undisposed of, the judgment of the trial court regarding his mental capacity is not conclusive. Cuneo v. Bessoni, 63 Ind 524.

The sole province of this court in a proceeding of this character is to investigate the regularity of the proceedings which plaintiff in error seeks to have reviewed. If they are so in all respects, and the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment rendered, we cannot inquire into the question of the sanity of plaintiff in error. If prejudicial error exists and there appears to be sufficient to warrant as inquest, the case must be remanded for a new trial, for the purpose of determining the sanity of the plaintiff in error in the manner which the statute provided.

Counsel for plaintiff in error contend that the statute under which this proceeding was instituted in the court below only applies to those entirely bereft of reason, and, if it is not susceptible of this construction, it is unconstitutional, because it violates natural rights. The object of the statute is to protect those whose mental faculties are affected to such a degree as to render them incapable of properly and safely managing their business affairs. The language employed indicates this purpose. It says, in effect, if it appears that any person is so distracted in mind as to render him incapable of safely and properly managing his estate, and a jury shall so find, a conservator shall be appointed. Absolute insanity is not the only test. The main object of the statute is the protection of the property of those mentally afflicted. Inquiry must be made as to the extent of such mental infirmity. If it exists in such a degree, and is of such character, that the person so afflicted is for that reason unable to act intelligently with respect to his business affairs, or is affected with that imbecility of mind not strictly insanity, but to such an extent that he is deprived of the mental power to act in a proper and provident manner in the management of his property interests, the statute is satisfied. Ridgeway v. Darwin, 8 Ves. 65; McElroy's Case, 6 Watts & S. 451; Calderon v. Martin, 50 La. Ann. 1153, 23 So. 909; Nailor's Children v. Nailor, 4 Dana, 339; Gray v. Obear, 59 Ga. 675; McCammon v. Cunningham, 108 Ind. 545, 9 N.E. 455; Fiscus v. Turner (Ind. Sup.) 24 N.E. 662; In re Bar ker, 2 Johns. Ch. 232. On the other hand, although the mind may not be sound, 'if there be capacity to manage, as the result of consecutive reasoning, although the management might not be such as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Smith v. Smith
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 26, 1950
    ...object of the action is to determine whether the person alleged to be of unsound mind is in fact a person of unsound mind. Shapter v. Pillar, 28 Colo. 209, 63 P. 302. The motion to dismiss the appeal must be I. The appellant urges with great earnestness that the trial court was in error in ......
  • Sweeney v. Summers
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • October 11, 1977
    ...He further concedes the state has a legitimate interest in incompetent persons by quoting the following passage from Shapter v. Pillar, 28 Colo. 209, 63 P. 302 (1900): "It falls to the state to take care of those who, by reason of mental incapacity, cannot take care of themselves. Ex Parte ......
  • Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Scott
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1905
    ...which the inference to be drawn is one that persons of ordinary intelligence are capable of determining for themselves. Shapter v. Pillar, 28 Colo. 209, 63 P. 302, and cases cited. The weight of authority supports the rule that, when it is impossible for a witness to state the facts so as t......
  • Merkel's Estate, Matter of, 80-53
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • October 27, 1980
    ...here, delegating the care of incompetent persons to the State. The Colorado Supreme Court stated in the early case of Shapter v. Pillar (1900), 28 Colo. 209, 63 P. 302, 304, "It falls to the State to take care of those who, by reason of mental incapacity, cannot take care of This tradition ......
  • 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