State v. Romme

• Decision Date: 16 July 1919
• Citation: 93 Conn. 571,107 A. 519
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. ROMME.

107 A. 519

93 Conn. 571

STATE v. ROMME.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 16, 1919

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; John J. Walsh Judge.

Action by the State of Connecticut against John H. Romme. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. No error.

Action to recover moneys paid by the plaintiff for the support of the defendant's intestate in the Connecticut Hospital for the Insane brought to and tried by the court of common pleas in Fairfield county. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $500.89, and appeal by the defendant.

The state seeks to recover from the estate of Mary F. Webb the several amounts expended by it for the support of her in the Connecticut Hospital for the Insane for the six years immediately preceding her death, to wit, from October 26 1911, to October 26, 1917. During that period its expenditures were at the rate of $1.50 per week for the first portion of the time and $1.75 for the remaining portion. They amounted in the whole to $500.89, and for that sum judgment was rendered in the state's favor.

November 27, 1879, Mary F. Webb was by the probate court of Stamford committed to the Connecticut Hospital for the Insane as an indigent insane person. The commitment was made on the application of one Charles W. Smith, acting for his wife, who was the sister and conservator of Mary. The statute then in effect provided that the state should pay $1.50 per week for the support of persons so committed and a like amount by the person making the application. Mary remained in the institution continuously until she died October 26, 1917. During all this time payments for her support were made in conformity with the law as it was from time to time, to wit in part by the state and in part by her brother-in-law or her conservator for the time being. The latter payments were made upon bills therefor rendered and receipted by the state as provided by statute.

Mary survived both her sister and brother-in-law, and at her death left a small estate of which the defendant is administrator. In due course the state presented to the latter its claim for the $500.89, which having been disallowed, this action was brought.

John H. Romme, of Stamford, for appellant.

John W Banks, of Bridgeport, for the State.

PRENTICE, C.J.

The language of section 7 of chapter 335 of the Public Acts of 1917, under which this action is brought, is too definite and certain in its meaning to admit of doubt that the intent of the General Assembly was to authorize recovery by the State from persons cared for under commitments to humane institutions, or from their estates, such amounts as within the six years' limitation prescribed therein it had theretofore expended or should thereafter expend for the support of such persons in such institutions. The provisions of the act are unmistakable in so defining its scope and in making it retroactive as well as prospective in its application. Plumb v. Sawyer, 21 Conn. 351, 355; Welch v. Wadsworth, 30 Conn. 149, 153, 79 Am.Dec. 239.

As the utterance of the supreme legislative authority of the state, its mandate cannot be questioned unless it be that it is unconstitutional, or denied enforcement in the present instance unless that enforcement would result in a violation of some controlling legal principle.

That it is made retroactive in its application does not, of itself, militate against its constitutionality. Welch v. Wadsworth, 30 Conn. 149, 155, 79 Am.Dec. 239.

Neither does it, in so far as it undertakes to permit the recovery from the person cared for, or his estate, of expenditure made by it prior to its enactment, impair the obligations of a contract. The statute is clearly divisible. In one part it authorizes recovery from...