State Hosp. At Raleigh v. Fountain

• Decision Date: 12 March 1901
• Citation: 128 N.C. 23,38 S.E. 34
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE HOSPITAL AT RALEIGH . v. FOUNTAIN.

38 S.E. 34

128 N.C. 23

STATE HOSPITAL AT RALEIGH .

v.FOUNTAIN.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 12, 1901.

INSANE — INDIGENT—STATE HOSPITAL — COMPENSATION—STATUTES.

1. In a controversy submitted without action, as authorized by Code, § 567, it was agreed that defendant's ward was possessed of an estate sufficient to defray her expenses in the plaintiff hospital. Held, that since under Code, § 2278, and Acts 1899, c. 1, § 44, the board of directors of the hospital was only authorized to receive others than indigent patients when there was sufficient room not needed for indigent patients, on payment of proper compensation, such ward_: not being indigent, was not entitled to free admission.

2. Under Const, art. 11, § 10, providing that the general assembly may provide that the in-digent insane of the state shall be cared for at the charge of the state, no restriction is placed on the assembly as to the care of insane who are not indigent, and Code, § 2278, and Acts 1899, c 1, § 44, authorizing admission of insane who are not indigent to the state hospital on payment of proper compensation, are valid.

Appeal from superior court, Edgecombe

county; Coble, Judge.

Controversy submitted on agreed statement of facts, without action, between the State Hospital at Raleigh and G. M. T. Fountain, guardian of Nancy L. Hargrove, an insane patient. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Shepherd & Shepherd, for appellant.

G. M. T. Fountain, In pro. per.

COOK, J. This is a controversy submitted without action, under section 567 of the Code, upon appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the superior court. It being admitted In the case that the defendant, Nancy L. Hargrove, is possessed of an estate sufficient to defray her expenses in the plaintiff hospital, there are but two questions submitted for our decision: First, whether her estate Is liable for her maintenance and treatment; second, is the institution required by law to maintain and treat her, as heretofore, without compensation?

Both of these questions are answered in section 2278 of the Code, which is in the following language: "In the admission of patients to an Insane asylum, priority of admission shall be given to the indigent insane; provided, that the boards of directors may regulate the admissions, having In view the curability of patients and the welfare of their institutions: provided, further, that said boards may, if there be sufficient room, admit other than indigent Insane persons upon payment of proper compensation." It Is plainly expressed in said section that it was the paramount purpose of the legislature to care for the Indigent, —an Insane person whose property Is Insufficient to support himself and his family immediately dependent upon him. This section of the Code is taken from Acts 1883, c. 156, § 39, and we have searched In vain to find any act repealing It We find it substantially re-enacted in section 44, c. 1, Acts 1899, which is as follows: "In the admission of patients to any state hospital, priority of...