State ex rel. Macey v. Johnson

• Citation: 50 Idaho 363,296 P. 588
• Decision Date: 20 February 1931
• Docket Number: 5700
• Parties: STATE ex rel. C. K. MACEY, Commissioner of Public Welfare, Appellant, v. ITHA G. JOHNSON, Guardian of the Person and Estate of MYRTLE O. WOODFIN, an Incompetent Person, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

296 P. 588

50 Idaho 363

STATE ex rel. C. K. MACEY, Commissioner of Public Welfare, Appellant, v. ITHA G. JOHNSON, Guardian of the Person and Estate of MYRTLE O. WOODFIN, an Incompetent Person, Respondent

No. 5700

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 20, 1931

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - INSANE PERSON, SUPPORT OF.

1. Unless legislature is expressly prohibited by Constitution legislature has plenary power.

2. In determining constitutionality of statute, that legislature has in effect construed Constitution as not adversely affecting statute is entitled to consideration.

3. Policy of Constitution must prevail over legislative policy.

4. Incompatibility between Constitution and statute must be clear and strong before statute should be declared unconstitutional.

5. Statute authorizing public welfare commissioner to collect expenses for care of inmate in insane institution if inmate has sufficient funds held authorized under Constitution (C S., sec. 1190, as amended by Laws 1921, chap. 186, sec. 3; Const., art. 10, sec. 1; Rev. Stats. 1887, secs. 750-782).

6. Delegation of duty to medical superintendent of insane institution of fixing amount public welfare commissioner could collect from inmate as expenses for care of inmate held not delegation of legislative authority (C. S., sec. 1190, as amended by Laws 1921, chap. 186, sec. 3).

7. Statute authorizing public welfare commissioner to collect expenses for care of inmate of insane institution held not to deprive inmate of property without due process of law, since action in court was expressly provided for (C. S., sec. 1190 as amended by Laws 1921, chap. 186, sec. 3; Const., art. 1 sec. 13).

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, for Latah County. Hon. Gillies D. Hodge, Judge.

Action brought under provisions of C. S., sec. 1190, as amended by 1921 Session Laws, chapter 186. Judgment for defendant. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

Fred J. Babcock, Attorney General, and Z. Reed Millar, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellant.

The Constitution and laws of this state provide for the imposing of liability upon the estates of insane persons for their support in state institutions and sanitariums. (C. S., sec. 1190, as amended by 1921 Sess. Laws, chap. 186, sec. 3; Const., art. 10, sec. 1.)

The great weight of authority is to the effect that statutes imposing liabilities upon the estates of relatives of insane persons for their support in state hospitals and institutions, are a legitimate exercise of legislative power. The validity of such statutes has been assailed upon various constitutional grounds, but they are almost universally upheld against objections to them as double taxation, special or class legislation, denial of due process, etc. (48 A. L. R. 733; Estate of Yturburru, 134 Cal. 567, 66 P. 729; Napa State Hospital v. Dasso, 153 Cal. 698, 15 Ann. Cas. 910, 96 P. 355, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 643; State Commission in Lunacy v. Eldridge, 7 Cal.App. 298, 94 P. 597; State v. Romme, 93 Conn. 571, 107 A. 519; Guthrie County v. Conrad, 133 Iowa 171, 110 N.W. 454; State v. Bateman, 110 Kan. 546, 204 P. 682.)

A. H. Oversmith, for Respondent.

C. S., sec. 1190, as amended by 1921 Sess. Laws, chap. 186, sec. 3, is an unconstitutional statute under the provisions of Const., art. 10, sec. 1, which, as to insane asylums, reads as follows: "Institutions . . . . for the benefit of the insane shall be established and supported by the state in such manner as may be prescribed by law." (Const., art. 10, sec. 1; Board of Commrs. v. State, 122 Okla. 268, 254 P. 710; St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Morris, 143 Okla. 160, 288 P. 306.)

The delegation by the legislature in 1921 Sess. Laws, chap. 186, of authority to the medical superintendent to fix the rate of compensation to be paid out of the estate of an insane patient without the legislature having prescribed a rule of action or without making any provision for a hearing under which such authority could be exercised, is unconstitutional and void in that the exercise of such uncontrolled power deprives a person of his property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and under that portion of section 13, of Article 1 of the Constitution of the state of Idaho, which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. (Ploner v. Standard Oil Co., 284 F. 34; State v. Superior Court, 113 Wash. 296, 193 P. 845, 12 A. L. R. 1428, and note following case on page 1435; State v. Crawford, 104 Kan. 141, 177 P. 360, 2 A. L. R. 880, and note on page 882; Anderson v. Manchester Fire Assur. Co., 59 Minn. 182, 50 Am. St. 400, 60 N.W. 1095, 63 N.W. 241, 28 L. R. A. 609; O'Neil v. American etc. Ins. Co., 166 Pa. 72, 45 Am. St. 650, 30 A. 943, 26 L. R. A. 715; Hewitt v. Board of Medical Examiners, 148 Cal. 590, 113 Am. St. 315, 7 Ann. Cas. 750, 84 P. 39, 3 L. R. A., N. S., 741; City of Elkhart v. Murray, 165 Ind. 304, 112 Am. St. 228, 6 Ann. Cas. 748, 75 N.E. 593, 1 L. R. A., N. S., 940.)

GIVENS, J. Lee, C. J., and Varian and McNaughton, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GIVENS, J.

Respondent, guardian of a patient confined in a state insane asylum, sued by appellant under C S., sec. 1190, amended 1921 Sess. Laws, p. 388, successfully demurred, in the trial court, to such action on the ground that said statute is in conflict with this portion of sec. 1, art. 10, of the Constitution: "Institutions . . . . for the benefit of the insane . . . . shall be established and supported by the state in such a manner as may be prescribed by law," and sec. 13, art. 1, contending "established and supported by the state" excludes enforced contribution from the inmate, his estate or relatives, and that the fixing by the medical superintendent of the sum to be paid is an unwarranted delegation of legislative authority and does not afford due process.

Section 1190 as amended reads thus:

"The court must inquire into the ability of the feeble minded or insane person committed by it to a sanitarium or insane asylum, to pay for his or her transportation to such sanitarium, and to bear the actual charges and expenses, or any part thereof, for the care and safe-keeping for the time that such person may remain in such sanitarium or asylum. In case a feeble minded or insane person committed to a sanitarium or asylum, under the provisions of this chapter, is possessed of real or personal property sufficient to pay such charges and expenses for his or her care and safe-keeping, the court must appoint a guardian for such person and estate, who is subject to all the provisions of the general laws of this state in relation to guardians and wards, as far as the same are applicable; and when there is not sufficient money in the hands of the guardian, the court may order a sale of property of such feeble minded or insane person, or as much thereof as may be necessary, as provided by law, and from the proceeds of such sale, the guardian must pay said expenses and . . . . the charges for his or her care and safe-keeping, or as much thereof as possible, to the commissioner of public welfare the sum fixed upon by the medical superintendent of such institution each month . . . . for the maintenance of such ward. . . .

"When a feeble minded or insane person has been admitted to a sanitarium or asylum, and the commitment papers do not show the appointment of a guardian of the estate of such person by the court having jurisdiction, the commissioner of public welfare may cause an inquiry to be made as to the financial circumstances of such feeble minded or insane person and of the relatives of such person legally liable for his or her support, and if he finds that such person or said relatives, legally liable for his or her support, are able to pay the expenses of the commitment and the charges for the care and safe-keeping of such person, in whole or in part, it shall be the duty of the commissioner of public welfare to collect such expenses, and such charges, and if necessary to institute in the name of the state, a civil suit against the person, or persons, liable therefor

"The following relatives shall be bound by law to provide for the expenses and charges for the care and safe-keeping of such feeble minded or insane persons referred to in this act: the husband for the wife, and the wife for the husband; the parent for his or her child or children, and the children for their parents."

The only case called to our attention, holding a statute of this kind unconstitutional, under a Constitution containing the words "establish and support," is Board of Commrs. of Logan County v. State ex rel. Short, 122 Okla. 268, 254 P. 710. The Oklahoma court in sustaining such inhibitory construction of its Constitution said:

"The constitution, of course, does not expressly inhibit the power the legislature has assumed to exercise, but an express inhibition is not necessary. The affirmation of a distinct policy upon any specific point in a state constitution implies the negation of any power in the legislature to establish a different policy. The presumption is that the positive provisions of a constitution are mandatory, and not merely directory, and there is nothing to overcome this presumption, as to the provisions under consideration. On the contrary, it is strongly supported by the consideration that section 3, article 17, of the constitution, provides that the counties shall provide for those inhabitants who, by reason of age, infirmity, or misfortune, may have claims upon the sympathy and aid of the county."

We believe this reasoning is inapplicable herein because our Constitution is not a delegation of power, but a...