State ex rel. Moser v. Montgomery
| Decision Date | 05 March 1945 |
| Citation | 186 S.W.2d 553,238 Mo.App. 1228 |
| Parties | State of Missouri at the Relation of Joseph J. Moser on Petition and Affidavit Made by Edward E. Naber in His Behalf for Restoration of Soundness of Mind, v. George S. Montgomery, Presiding Judge, Fred Klaber, Judge of Western District and Walter L. Yost, Judge of the Eastern District, Judges of the County Court of Jackson County, Missouri, and Ben Nordberg, Clerk of the County Court of Jackson County, Missouri |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Thos. J. Seehorn, Judge.
Reversed.
George K. Brasher and Edwin A. Harris for appellants.
(1) The powers granted to county courts by Section 36, Article VI Constitution of Missouri, are limited to management of county financial affairs, and said courts possess no power except those conferred by statute. County courts have no common law or equitable jurisdiction. State ex rel. Assn. for Convalescent Children v. Corneli, 152 S.W.2d 83, l. c 85; Missouri Elec. Power Co. v. City of Mountain Grove, 176 S.W.2d 612, l. c. 615; State ex rel Walthers v. Johnson, 173 S.W.2d 411, 413; State ex rel. v. Oliver, 208 S.W. 112, l. c. 115; Rinehart v. Howell County, 153 S.W.2d 381, 383; State ex rel. Chadwick Consol. School District v. Jackson, 84 S.W.2d 988, l. c. 990; State ex rel. Sanks v. Johnson, 121 S.W. 780, l. c. 783. (2) Sec. 492, R. S. Mo., 1939, grants no authority to the county court to hold inquisitions to determine if persons once adjudicated insane have since been restored to their soundness of mind. The court cannot extend a statute beyond its plain and obvious meaning. Betz v. K. C. Southern Ry., 284 S.W. 455, l. c. 461; Grier v. K. C., C. C. & St. J. Ry., 228 S.W. 454, l. c. 458. Dworkin v. Caledonia Ins. Co., 226 S.W. 846, l. c. 851; Hannibal Trust Co. v. Elzea, 286 S.W. 371, l. c. 377; Dahlin v. Mo. Commission for the Blind, 262 S.W. 420, l. c. 423; State v. Mills, 142 S.W. 477, l. c. 479; Kehr v. City of Columbia, 116 S.W. 428, l. c. 429, 3 L. R. A. 332. (3) County courts are precluded from assuming any supervision or control over custody of patients after they have once been adjudicated insane and committed to an insane asylum. Sec. 9321, R. S. Mo., 1939; Sec. 492, R. S. Mo., 1939. (4) The hospital record of the discharge of the patient, raises no presumption as to the state of his sanity. Negative recitals are not competent to prove affirmative facts. Bates v. Forcht, 1 S.W. 120, l. c. 122; Waller v. Wagner, 79 S.W. 941, l. c. 943; Monk v. Wabash Ry., 150 S.W. 1083, l. c. 1085; Inman v. United Ry. Co., 137 S.W. 3, l. c. 4; Starnes v. St. Joseph Ry. Light, Heat & Power Co., 22 S.W.2d 73, l. c. par. No. 3; Globe Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Laclede Power Co., 98 S.W.2d 1053, l. c. par. No. 1. (5) No authority exists for county courts to reopen, review, modify, vacate or set aside an adjudication of insanity entered of record by a predecessor county court. State v. McQuillin, 151 S.W. 444; State ex rel. v. Wilkerson, 126 S.W.2d 1158; 34 C. J., "Judgments," p. 219, sec. 440; Hill v. St. Louis, 20 Mo. 584; 34 C. J., "Judgments," p. 232, sec. 451, and p. 868, sec. 1282; Painter v. Painter, 228 S.W. 538. (6) The legal status of a person once adjudicated insane by a court of competent jurisdiction remains unchanged in absence of any subsequent adjudication affecting him. State v. Vaughn, 122 S.W. 677, l. c. 678; Kiehne v. Wessell, 53 Mo.App. 668, l. c. 670; Ex parte McWilliams, 164 S.W. 221; Westinghouse Elec. Co. v. Hodge, 167 S.W. 1186, l. c. 1187; Powell v. Travelers Ins., 140 S.W. 939, l. c. 943; Canty v. Halpin, 242 S.W. 87, l. c. 102; 22 C. J., "Evidence," p. 86, secs. 28 and 29 and Note 91; 32 C. J., "Insane Persons," p. 756, sec. 560, note 20; 29 C. J., "Habeas Corpus," p. 105, sec. 100.
Edward E. Naber and Jay L. Oldham for respondent, Joseph J. Moser.
(1) County courts are judicial bodies and have common law jurisdiction of all matters delegated to them, not abrogated by the Constitution or statutory enactments. Section 1, Article VI, Missouri Constitution; Missouri Electric Power Co. v. City of Mountain Grove et al. (Mo.), 176 S.W.2d 612, l. c. 614; State ex rel. Walthner v. Johnson et al., County Judges, 173 S.W.2d 411, l. c. 413; Section 36, Article VI, Missouri Constitution; Secs. 645, 9328, R. S. Mo., 1939; Session Laws of Missouri, 1943, p. 16; State ex rel. Assn. for Convalescent Crippled Children et al. v. Corneli et al. (Mo.), (in Banc), 152 S.W.2d 83, l. c. 85; Brandon v. Carter et al., 119 Mo. 572, l. c. 581; King v. Maries County (Mo.), 249 S.W. 418, l. c. 420; Blades et al. v. Hawkins, 240 Mo. 187, l. c. 197, 144 S.W. 1198; St. Matthew, Chapter 4, Verse 23; Acts, Chapter 5, Verse 23; Yerger v. Smith, 338 Mo. 410, 89 S.W.2d 66, l. c. 74; Leach v. Armstrong et al. (Mo. App.), 156 S.W. 959, l. c. 960; Raper et al. v. Lusk et al. (Mo. App.), 181 S.W. 1032, l. c. 1033; Art. 2, Chap. 51, R. S. Mo., 1939; Secs. 9321, 9328, R. S. Mo., 1939; Painter v. Painter (Mo. App.), 228 S.W. 538, l. c. 540; Clark v. Austin (Mo.), 101 S.W.2d 997, l. c. 981, 340 Mo. 467; Rice v. Gray et al. (Mo. App.), 34 S.W.2d 567, l. c. 571; Tock v. Tock (Mo. App.), 120 S.W.2d 169, l. c. 171; L. E. Lines Music Co., v. Holt et al. (Mo.), 60 S.W.2d 32, l. c. 34, 332 Mo. 749. (2) County court only court that can commit insane to state hospitals. Sec. 9328, R. S. Mo., 1939; Ussery v. Haynes et al. (Mo.), 127 S.W. 410, l. c. 414; Van Loo v. Osage County (Mo.), 141 S.W.2d 805, l. c. 806. (3) Court that first obtains jurisdiction retains it for all purposes. Miller et al. v. Continental Assur. Co. of Am. (Mo. App.), 196 S.W. 448, l. c. 450; Finley v. Smith (Mo.), 178 S.W. 326, l. c. 329. (4) Judgment of county court cannot be collaterally attacked and entitled to full faith and credit. McKenzie v. Donnell, 151 Mo. 431, l. c. 450; Petet v. McClanah et al., 297 Mo. 677, 249 S.W. 917, l. c. 927. (5) Sec. 492, R. S. Mo., 1939, regarding probate courts, has no application. Judgment of county court is not final, but a continuing one. In re Moyniham (Mo.), 62 S.W.2d 410, l. c. 419; Cockrill v. Cockrill, 79 F. 143, l. c. 152; Dutcher v. Hill, 29 Mo. 271, l. c. 274; In the Matter of Marquis, 85 Mo. 615, 617; 12 C. J., p. 187, Sec. 16 and p. 202, Sec. 35. (6) There is a remedy for every wrong. Section 10, Article II, Constitution of Missouri; Boilloch v. Income Guaranty Co., 231 Mo. 531, 102 S.W.2d 132, l. c. 140.
This action was first instituted in the County Court of Jackson County by respondent, Joseph J. Moser, by next friend, filing a petition in that court seeking to have the county court hold an inquisition to determine whether he had recovered his sanity. A hearing was had and the court entered an order finding that he had fully recovered his sanity and was competent to manage his affairs; but the court also found that it had no jurisdiction of the matter and was without authority to grant the relief prayed for and dismissed his petition.
There being no appeal allowed the cause was taken to the circuit court of Jackson County by writ of certiorari and, after a hearing, that court decreed that the county court did have jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter and ordered the county court to enter a judgment discharging Moser in accordance with its finding on the merits. The members of the county court and the clerk appealed from that judgment.
The facts are not in dispute and, briefly stated, are: On June 2, 1927, the county court of Jackson County adjudged Moser a person of unsound mind and ordered him committed to State Hospital No. 2 as a county or indigent patient. He was confined there until April 23, 1938, when he was paroled from that institution by the superintendent and, on April 19, 1939, the acting superintendent discharged him therefrom and made an entry on the hospital records to that effect, but did not assign any reason for such discharge.
It is admitted that, at the hearing of the present case in the county court, there was testimony of competent physicians and lay witnesses tending to prove that Moser had long since recovered his soundness of mind, and, for a number of years, had been very capably managing his affairs and was engaged in a gainful occupation and enjoying the respect and confidence of his acquaintances; that he was named beneficiary in an insurance policy and entitled to receive a considerable sum of money therefrom, but that said insurance company would not pay to him the money it admitted he was entitled to receive until his restoration of sanity be judicially declared or a guardian be appointed for him.
Several assignments of error are made, but they all revolve around the vital and fundamental question of whether the county court has jurisdiction to hold a hearing and decide whether a person, who was originally found to be of unsound mind by that court, has been restored to mental soundness. If the county court has such jurisdiction, then it erred in dismissing Moser's petition, but if it does not have, then it did not err.
The specific question presented has never been decided by an appellate court.
It is now well established in this state that a county court has jurisdiction to conduct a hearing and determine whether an indigent citizen of that county is a person of unsound mind, and if it so finds it may commit him to a state hospital at county expense. [Downey et al. v. Schrader (Mo. Sup. en banc), 182 S.W.2d 320.] It has also been held that the probate court has concurrent jurisdiction with the county court to hold sanity inquisitions of an indigent person, but that the probate court has no authority to commit such person to a state hospital. The county court is the only court that can commit such person to such a hospital. [Ussery v. Haines...
To continue reading
Request your trial