Wright County v. Hagan

• Decision Date: 23 June 1930
• Docket Number: 40168
• Citation: 231 N.W. 298,210 Iowa 795
• Parties: WRIGHT COUNTY, Appellant, v. THOMAS A. HAGAN, Executor, et al., Appellees
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

231 N.W. 298

210 Iowa 795

WRIGHT COUNTY, Appellant, v. THOMAS A. HAGAN, Executor, et al., Appellees

No. 40168

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

June 23, 1930

Appeal from Wright District Court.--T. G. GARFIELD, Judge.

Affirmed.

Robert D. Blue, County Attorney, for appellant.

Sylvester Flynn, for appellees.

OPINION

The opinion states the case. Plaintiff appeals.--Affirmed.

WAGNER J.

This action at law was begun on July 16, 1928, to recover a judgment against Tillie M. Heskett for the amounts expended by the county for the care and support furnished Ellen Lucksinger, adult daughter of said original defendant, in the Hospital for the Insane at Cherokee, and in the Home for the Feeble-minded and Hospital for Epileptics at Woodward. Before the trial of the case, Tillie M. Heskett died testate, and Thomas A. Hagan, the executor of her estate, was substituted as party defendant. The action was aided by a writ of attachment, which was levied upon certain real estate. Sevilla Mary Fellman and Stella Irene Brassfield, daughters of Tillie M. Heskett, intervened in the action, claiming as their property, under deeds executed and delivered by their mother in July, 1924, the real estate upon which the writ of attachment had been levied.

The plaintiff alleges in its petition, in substance, that, on or about the 21st day of January, 1918, the said daughter of Tillie M. Heskett was committed by the commissioners of insanity of the plaintiff county to the Hospital for the Insane at Cherokee, where she was maintained and kept until the year 1921, when she was transferred to the Home for the Feeble-minded and Hospital for Epileptics at Woodward; that during the period of her commitment, the plaintiff county has provided for the said ward, at the aforesaid institutions, the necessaries for, her care and support, in the amount of $ 1,856.71, as shown by the itemized statement of account thereto attached. Said itemized statement gives the dates and amounts of the quarterly payments made by the county in March, June, September, and December of each year, the last of said payments having been made March 31, 1928. The plaintiff asks judgment for the entire amount paid.

The defendant executor in one count of his answer pleads a general denial. In another count, he alleges that Ellen Luck-singer was, at all times material to the controversy, the adult daughter of the said Tillie M. Heskett. In still another count, he alleges that whatever claim the plaintiff may have for expenditures actually made for her care and support prior to July 16, 1926, accrued more than two years prior to the commencement of the action, and is barred by the express provisions of Section 5309 of the 1927 Code. The case was tried to the court, without a jury, upon an agreed stipulation of facts, it being stipulated, for the purposes of trial, that, on or about the 21st day of January, 1918, said daughter, an epileptic, who was then about 30 years of age, was duly committed by the commissioners of insanity of plaintiff county to the State Hospital for the Insane, at Cherokee, where she was maintained at the expense of plaintiff county until sometime during the year 1921, when she was transferred to the Home for the Feeble-minded and Hospital for Epileptics at Woodward, and at all times thereafter, was maintained in said latter institution, at the expense of the county; that the amount which the county had expended prior to two years immediately preceding the commencement of the action was $ 1,827.46, and the amount expended during the period of the two years immediately preceding the commencement of the action was $ 29.25. It was further stipulated that, at the time when the said daughter was committed to the Hospital for the Insane, she was not employed in any gainful occupation, and had not been so employed for a considerable period prior thereto, and that, at the time of her commitment, and since said time, she has had no property, either real or personal, aside from her clothing and other personal effects. It was further stipulated that the said Tillie M. Heskett, in July, 1924, executed and delivered deeds for the real property claimed by the interveners, upon which the writ of attachment was levied. The daughter Ellen Lucksinger is named as a party defendant, but it is not shown that there was service of notice upon her, and the case was tried only as among the parties named other than the said Ellen Lucksinger.

At the conclusion of the trial, the court found in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of only $ 29.25, the amount expended by the plaintiff during the two years immediately preceding the commencement of the action, and interest thereon, and established the same as a claim against the estate of Tillie M. Heskett, deceased, and directed the executor to pay the same, together with the costs of suit, and released the real property of the interveners from the lien of the attachment. From this action by the trial court, the plaintiff has appealed.

Since the deceased was not the owner of the real property at the time of the levy of the writ of attachment, the action of the court in releasing said property of the interveners' from the lien of the attachment is clearly right.

Now, what as to the claim of the appellant? The court held that all of plaintiff's claim against the mother was barred by Section 5309 of the Code of 1927, except the amounts expended during the two years immediately preceding the commencement of the action, and found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the estate of the mother for the amounts expended during said two-years period. The defendant has not appealed. The appellant contends that said section is not applicable, and that the account upon which it has sued, is a continuous, open, current account, within the meaning of Section 11011 of the Code, and that its cause of action would not outlaw until five years after the date of the last item of the account. This is the proposition upon which the appellant relies for reversal. It relies upon the following authorities: Scott County v. Townsley, 174 Iowa 192, 156 N.W. 291; Jones County v. Norton, 91 Iowa 680, 60 N.W. 200; Harrison County v. Dunn, 84 Iowa 328, 51 N.W. 155; Cedar County v. Sager, 90 Iowa 11, 57 N.W. 634,--all of which are actions brought by the county to recover for amounts expended for the support of an insane person.

If the appellant is entitled to recover against the estate of the mother of the ward for amounts expended for the care and support of the adult daughter as an insane person, then said authorities are in point; but the mother is not liable for moneys expended by the county for the support of her adult insane daughter in the aforesaid state institutions. The necessary and legal costs and expenses attending the commitment, care, and support of an insane person committed to a state hospital shall be paid by the county in which such person has a legal settlement. See Section 3581, Code, 1927. Section 3595 of the Code provides:

"Insane Persons and persons legally liable for their support shall remain liable and for the support of such insane." (Writer's italics.)

Section 3471 of the Code, being a part of the chapter relative to the Hospital for Epileptics and School for Feeble-minded, provides:

"All laws relating to the commitment of insane persons to the hospitals for the in so far as applicable, shall apply to commitments of epileptics to said hospital and school."

The appellant contends that, by reason of the aforesaid...