United States v. Haviland

• Decision Date: 25 January 1924
• Docket Number: 166.,165
• Citation: 297 F. 431
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. CURTISS v. HAVILAND. HAVILAND v. CURTISS.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

297 F. 431

UNITED STATES ex rel. CURTISS v. HAVILAND.

HAVILAND v. CURTISS.

Nos. 165, 166.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

January 25, 1924

Proceeding by C. Floyd Haviland against Edward W. Curtiss. From the judgment, Haviland appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Appeals from the district of Connecticut; the first taken in a matter tried like a suit in equity, and the second in a proceeding under habeas corpus.

On October 30, 1919, Curtiss, having been found guilty of crime in the superior court of Connecticut, was sentenced for nine months to the Litchfield county jail. Before the expiration of his sentence, the Governor of the State appointed a commission of three to examine into the sanity of Curtiss. This commission found him insane; he was accordingly removed from the jail to the state hospital for insane at Middletown.

Before the expiration of Curtiss' sentence, Haviland, the hospital superintendent, certified to the Governor that the prisoner was still insane, whereupon the Governor issued his order for the further detention of Curtiss in the hospital until such time as he could recover sanity or until further order according to law.

Curtiss being thus detained after the expiration of his sentence for crime, procured the above habeas corpus on December 12, 1921 in which he averred that his detention in the care of Dr Haviland after the expiration of his sentence was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

On or about December 30, 1921, a hearing was had under this writ by the District Judge, who, however, did not finally decide the matter. Meantime, and on or about December 16, 1921, Dr Haviland, pursuant to Gen. Stat. Conn. Sec. 1691, preferred his petition to a judge of the superior court of Connecticut, praying for the appointment of a committee to inquire whether Curtiss was an insane person unfit to go at large.

Of the appointment and meeting of such committee Curtiss had due notice, and on March 11, 1922, the committee found Curtiss insane. Meanwhile, and on or about January 24, 1922, Curtiss' attorney endeavored to remove to the District Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut the proceeding brought by Dr. Haviland before a judge of the superior court to have Curtiss' sanity inquired into.

To this end Curtiss made what he called a motion to remove, addressed to 'Hon. Isaac Wolfe, a Judge of the Superior Court. ' This motion Curtiss signed and verified. In it he avers that Haviland v. Curtiss is a 'suit of a civil nature' in which the matter in dispute exceeds $3,000, and constitutes a 'controversy between citizens of different states,' in that Haviland was a citizen of Connecticut and Curtiss of Massachusetts.

Curtiss' attorney had this verified motion executed in duplicate at least, and sent one to Judge Wolfe and one to the clerk of the superior court. He then made an affidavit to the effect that he had endeavored to get from the said clerk a certified copy of the record and proceedings of Haviland v. Curtiss, but, as the attorney said in an affidavit subsequently filed in the District Court, the clerk 'neglected and refused' to deliver (the same), stating that he had never seen the suit in question.

Thereupon the attorney for Curtiss filed in the District Court the affidavit above referred to, which concludes with the statement that since he had taken 'every step legally possible and open to me' to procure a certified copy of the record in Haviland v. Curtiss, and been unable to procure the same, 'I request Hon. Edwin S. Thomas to direct that this record hereto attached be supplied and used in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. ' The record hereto attached consisted of Curtiss' petition to remove Dr. Haviland's petition to Judge Wolfe, that judge's appointment of a committee, and an order directing the sheriff to produce the body of Curtiss before the committee.

Thereupon the following indorsement was made on Curtiss' 'motion to remove':

'Removed from Superior Court.'

'Middlesex County, Conn. Petition.'

'On removal.' 'Ordered accordingly.'

'Thomas, D.J. 24 Feby., 1922.'

Thus by the date last given there were thought to be pending and undetermined in the District Court these two proceedings, i.e., the habeas corpus directed to Dr. Haviland, and a supposed removed suit from the superior court entitled 'Haviland v. Curtiss.'

It will be seen that the committee appointed by Judge Wolfe functioned and found Curtiss insane after the order above quoted had been entered in the

United States District Court. In June, 1922, both the habeas corpus and this so-called removed suit were brought on for trial and tried together. After hearing, Curtiss being physically before the court, the trial judge found as a fact that Curtiss was not in his opinion insane, whereupon he entered the following direction or order by indorsement upon the original filed writ of habeas corpus, 'Writ sustained. Relator discharged. See Opinion June 1, 1922,' and signed it. Thereupon Curtiss left the courtroom free of all custody, and has so remained.

No more formal order than the above was ever entered in this habeas corpus matter, but on May 29, 1923, the trial judge signed what is called in the record a judgment, which on its face recites that the above decision was made at a stated term of the court held 'on the 29th day of May, 1922.'

In Haviland v. Curtiss a formal judgment or decree was entered reciting that Curtiss 'is not insane and ought not to be confined in the hospital for the insane,' so that it was ordered 'that the said Edward W. Curtiss be immediately released and be permitted to go at large.'

Exactly when this order or decree was entered or filed is not very clear; it certainly was not at the time when Curtiss in point of fact went free, but it was admitted at bar that this formal order was entered within six...