State ex rel. Conway v. Glenn, Civil 4528
Decision Date | 16 November 1942 |
Docket Number | Civil 4528 |
Citation | 131 P.2d 363,60 Ariz. 22 |
Parties | STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. JOE CONWAY, Attorney General, Appellant, v. HARRIETTE WILLOUGHBY GLENN, as Guardian of the Estate of WILLIAM CLARK WILLOUGHBY, an Incompetent, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Cochise. John Wilson Ross, Judge. Judgment reversed.
Mr. Joe Conway, Attorney General, and Mr. W. E. Polley, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellant.
Mr John M. Williams, for Appellee.
This is an action brought by the State of Arizona, plaintiff against Harriette Willoughby Glenn, as guardian of the estate of William Clark Willoughby, an incompetent, defendant, to recover certain sums claimed to be due for the maintenance of said incompetent in the Arizona State Hospital. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant, and this appeal was taken.
The facts necessary for a determination of the appeal are not in question and may be stated as follows: William Clark Willoughby was employed by the Southern Pacific Railroad Company on December 18, 1928, on which date he suffered an accident and an injury while in the course of his employment. On April 25, 1930, the judge of the superior court of Pima county entered his order in case No. 4728 adjudging Willoughby to be insane and committed him to the state hospital, where he remained from July 11, 1930, to April 18 1941, and again from May 13, 1941, to July 10 of the same year. The order of commitment made at the time contained no reference to the payment of any maintenance while he was in the state hospital, with the exception of the following:
"Mrs. W. C. Willoughby, wife, Douglas, Ariz., probably has claim against S.P. Co. for injury which caused his present condition, and some funds may be available in the future from that source."
His wife was appointed guardian of his estate by the superior court of Cochise county and effected a cash settlement with the railroad company for his injuries. Mrs. Willoughby died on January 27, 1938, and Harriette Willoughby Glenn, the daughter of the incompetent, was appointed guardian of his estate by the superior court of Cochise county, and duly qualified as such. In November, 1940, an informal request was made by the officers of the state hospital to the guardian for the payment of the maintenance expenses of the incompetent at the hospital. As a result of this request, seven monthly payments of $30, and one of $12, were made by the guardian, but payments were then stopped. On January 20, 1942, the attorney general filed a petition in the superior court of Pima county for an inquiry into the ability of the incompetent's estate to bear the charges and expenses of his maintenance while in the state hospital. Pursuant to the petition an order to show cause was issued and a hearing was had, the guardian being present at such hearing, when the following order was made:
Shortly thereafter the officers of the state hospital prepared a creditor's claim against the estate of the incompetent for his maintenance for the period which he was in the hospital, showing credits thereon of the payments above referred to made by the guardian, and a balance of $3,712 still due. No action was taken by the guardian on this claim for the reason, as stated by her, that she did not think it was a valid one, whereupon this suit was brought under the provisions of sections 38-1005 and 38-1007, Arizona Code 1939. It was established that the estate of the incompetent was fully able to pay the claim, but judgment was rendered nevertheless for defendant.
The first question we consider is as to under what authority the claim for maintenance was made. At the time the order above set forth was made, chapter 44 of the Regular Session Laws of 1941, as amended by chapter 23, first special session of 1941, was in effect. Sections 6 and 17 thereof read so far as material as follows:
Section 6, supra, as originally adopted, is first found in chapter 44, supra. Section 17 was an amendment of section 8-303, Arizona Code 1939, which, in turn, traces back through section 1771, Revised Code 1928 and paragraph 1201, Revised Statutes Arizona 1913 (Civ. Code). This history of this statute is important, for it is contended by defendant that any order for the maintenance of a person committed to the state hospital must be made at the time of the commitment, and that the court lacks jurisdiction to make such an order thereafter.
Paragraph 1201, supra, reads so far as material as follows:
(Italics ours.)
When the code was revised in 1928, it was amended to read as follows:
It will be noted that the language "at the examination of the alleged insane person, or at any time thereafter" found in paragraph 1201, supra, is omitted from section 1771, supra, and that neither it nor section 17, supra, makes any reference whatever to the time at which the order should be made. It is urged that this shows it was the later intent of the legislature that the order of maintenance be made only at the time of the original examination and commitment.
We think it is just as reasonable to say the omission...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc.
...281 P. at 946. "[A] statutory provision authorized by the Constitution always supersedes the common law." State ex rel. Conway v. Glenn, 60 Ariz. 22, 30, 131 P.2d 363, 367 (1942). Thus, to the extent §§ 12-864 and 12-2101 may be in conflict on this question, we conclude the legislature's sp......
-
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc., 18082-CQ
...is modifiable by the legislature. S.H. Kress Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 66 Ariz. 67, 182 P.2d 931 (1947); State ex rel. Conway v. Glenn, 60 Ariz. 22, 131 P.2d 363 (1942); Tucson Gas & Electric Co. v. Schantz, 5 Ariz.App. 511, 428 P.2d 686 (1964). Consequently the legislature was free t......
-
Dunn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
... ... City of Bisbee, Respondent Employer, ... State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier ... No ... State ex rel. Industrial Comm'n v. Pressley, 74 Ariz. 412, 250 ... ...
-
State v. Goldfarb
...arise out of contract and therefore was not governed by the provisions of the applicable nonclaim statute such as State ex rel. Conway v. Glenn, 60 Ariz. 22, 131 P.2d 363, and County of Los Angeles v. Security First National Bank, 84 Cal.App.2d 575, 191 P.2d 78, are not guides to our presen......