79 W. Va. 604 | W. Va. | 1917
A judgment rendered by the circuit court of Ohio County, on an appeal from a judgment of a justice, in favor of a father-in-law against his son-in-law, for the support and nursing of the latter’s insane wife, while in the custody and care of the former, under a bond given by him in a proceeding to have her committed to a hospital for the insane, the condition whereof was that he should restrain and take proper care of her until the cause of her confinement should cease, is the subject matter of this writ of error.
On the complaint of the husband, the wife was apprehended, taken before a justice and adjudged to be insane, on February 23, 1915. Two days later, her father and a sister appeared and took her into their care, on filing with the justice the bond required by the statute. From that date until August 31, 1915, when she was adjudged to have been restored to sanity, she remained at the home of her father and received from him and her mother such care, attention and nursing as she required and also her board. Such medicines as she needed were furnished by her father, at an expense of $14.50. This item and a charge of $10.00 a week for board and nursing, amounting to $262.85, making a total of $277.35, constituted the claim for which the action was brought. The justice rendered a judgment for the whole amount thereof and, on the trial in the -circuit court, there was a verdict by direction of the court, for the like amount, upon which judgment was rendered.
As to the husband’s liability for support of his insane wife, the authorities are in considerable conflict. Differences in the circumstances under which claims for such support have been asserted and in the provisions of the statutes pertaining to the subject, may afford ground for reconciliation of most of the decisions and for the view that the contradictions found therein are apparent rather than real. In some instances, actions were brought against husbands by hospitals for the insane, established and maintained by law and at public expense. Under such circumstances, there is no common law liability or right of recovery, and liability, therefore, depends upon the terms of the statute. Richardson v. Trustees, (Wis.)
In that case the husband had placed the wife in a hospital for the insane from which she escaped. Then he caused her to be apprehended and taken before a court for proceedings under the lunacy statute. The court released her upon a statutory recognizance given by friends and relatives who took upon themselves her care and maintenance. The husband, at the time, objected to her release under the recognizance, and notified the plaintiff that he would not pay for her board at his residence, but would pay for it at the hospital, and afterwards provided a place for her outside of his house and gave notice of the fact. She was an invalid and required much care and attention, and she persistently refused to have any communication with her husband, claiming she was not insane and that her confinement was wrongful. On the theory of right in the wife to regain her liberty, by means of the recognizance so given, and then pledge the husband’s credit for her support and maintenance, in the exercise of her common law right, in the event of his wrongful abandonment of her, the court permitted the plaintiff to recover.
Our statute providing for release and private custody is like that.of Rhode Island, in all substantial particulars; but neither statute expressly gives the custodian right of action against the husband. In neither state, does the statute contemplate commitment, if a friend or relative will take the insane person into his care and custody and execute a bond
In this case, however, the filing of the complaint by the husband, the adjudication of insanity and the commitment are not all of the circumstances to be considered. The husband evidently had an ulterior motive for commitment of his wife to an asylum. He filed the complaint and had her adjudged to be insane, without notice to her parents, and, after they took her into their custody, he contributed absolutely notMng for her support and gave her no care or attention. Moreover, he had been unfaithful to her. He had given a ■good deal of his time and attention to another woman, had taken the piano from the house, ostensibly to have it repaired, ■and had never returned it. These circumstances throw light •on Ms motive for the legal proceedings and his failure to endeavor to make any provision for her private custody and
These principles and conclusions sustain the action of the court in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, wherefore the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.