*1
469
Harleysville
24 Utah 2d
P.2d 346.
GILES,
Admr.,
W.
etc.
cited,
just
Utah
In the last case
sured motorist regard as
conclusion in this follows: language think that under
“We
35-1-62, U.C.A., 2, supra), (footnote supple- has the breadwinner any
ment be benefits which he compensa-
entitled under the workmen’s act, by
tion procuring paying what- premium squeeze
ever he can out of
budget independent an policy for an with
independent large carrier afford, giving
amount can
up any compensation workmen’s bene-
fits.”
In argument support assignments appellants
6 and counsel for cited cases, upon relied two Hackman v. Liability Co.,
American Mutual Ins.
N.H. 261 A.2d v. Ullman Co., Ill.App.2d
Wolverine Ins.
N.E.2d 827.
Both Hampshire New are Illinois
among jurisdictions those construing their limiting
uninsured motorists statutes as re-'
covery to statutory provided limit
their (See uninsured motorists statutes.
Safeco.) therefore these We consider inapposite.
two cases This for the reason recovery such limitation on Safeco repudiated, opinion and the Appeals adopted
Court of Civil which had
such view was reversed. judgment due court is lower affirmed, it is so ordered. ...
Affirmed. .HEFLIN, LAWSON, J., and C. MER- ,and MADDOX, JJ., concur.
RILL *2 Lewis, Jr., Montgomery, Herbert
appellee. Russell, Russell, Raymon Tuskegee, & appellant. because,
is void is informed upon alleges and believes and belief, Hearing no was had information provided *3 peti- is and said order void because mind the time said tioner was of sound at order issued. respondent petition the is
The to the Di hospital. produced of rector the He the body petitioner Judge before of the Circuit the and made return under to oath writ writ, In his to the corpus. of habeas return respondent petitioner answers holds he Court, by copy an order a of the Probate answer; of the order to the attached COLEMAN, Justice. petitioner has been examined and ob and, by opinion hospital served in the staff patient, A is in who confined the Vet- respondent, petitioner’s of the staff and erans Administration at Tuske- requires mental condition his further con gee, appeals a judgment denying his finement for care and treatment and his hospital hearing release from the after a others; own welfare and the welfare of at represented which he was and respondent conscientiously rec cannot by his patient counsel. The will sometimes petitioner’s ommend under release Title petitioner. be referred to as or 219.2 §§ hearing by The petition was initiated his for Judge provide, habeas addressed to in the and Sections 218 sub- the County. of Circuit patient Court of Macon stance that a has been restor- when petitioner alleges The illegally comparatively that he is a ed to normal or safe and restrained of his and period confined of time good mental condition for hospital the sufficiently opinion under is- commitment order the long to warrant by sued Judge hospital of the Probate superintendent of the of the Montgomery County; that said is order to his patient ought to be returned petitioner void given because no no- large, superintendent set or at home and, tice of a patient’s he was bring commitment steps shall take to about therefore, right appear denied and release. provided by
defend at said Title the return filed a traverse to 1940,1 Petitioner proc- and denied due § law; allegations ess that said order of thereof. commitment and denied the provisions pro- 1. for § contains or defective hospitals welfare, operated he be re- vide for commitment own and others’ by restraint, care, hospital Veterans Adminis- the United States tained said and, I, tration, following And that as Director contains sen- and treatment. Hospital, tence, Administration to-wit: of Tuskegee, Alabama, Veterans person appear and been am conscientiously recommend unable to and defend shall not be denied.” still provisions of Code release Alabama, Respondent’s or Section 2. return contains the follow- ing not been restored to because he has statement: “ good comparatively Billy Phillips safe and normal . . has been . Jack opinion warranting condition mental examined and observed staff of hospital my part Hospital, Director of said Veterans Administration and ought my opinion opinion his home that he to be returned staff ” again. sufficiently large hospital . . . or set said is deficient The chief clerk Tuskegee, Probate Court according Alabama to in- signed testified that he the order commit- structions received Superin- from the ting petitioner hospital (Title to the tendent as_patient.” 300),- and that no formal commitment affidavits made W. Williams J. hearing was held.3 Berry, respectively, L. recite that pertinent they part, In did the commitment order observe my opinion knowledge recites: of the said Billy Phillips certify that he is in- Jack having alleged my sane and in judgment good for his own Billy to me Phillips a resident Jack good public should insane, County of said and that for his *4 committed hospital to the for the insane.” public own and that welfare demand he persons be sent hospital to the for insane The affidavit of Dr. Kocour recites that treatment, for custody pursuant and to he has made a careful examination of statutory provisions cases, in petitioner I and . “. . from said exami- have following called before me the Billy nation find Phillips that said Jack credible and witnesses Williams W. is good insane and for his own and for the J. J. Berry reputa- L. a Dr. E. good public Kocour he be should committed J. physician, practicing ble early in medicine as practical Hospital to for State, having them examined under insane.” oath, fully investigated and otherwise that, The chief clerk further to testified case, Billy facts of the the said with knowledge, given peti- no notice was to Court, Phillips present in doI Jack tioner go- that a hearing commitment was hereby proof certify that sufficient has ing held, that no notice was “. satisfactorily been adduced me to before given Court,” peti- out of the Probate Billy Phillips that the show said is Jack tioner was not at the commitment ought mentally so defective that he hearing, that no formal hear- commitment hospital be committed to the for insane and, ing held, if hearing was such a were persons keeping for safe and treatment. held, his would records show it. satisfactory certify, “I further Petitioner testified that he was never proof has been me that adduced before Judge carried for _ before the Probate a said - suffi- has hearing, commitment that he did not have pay_expenses cient means to hearing notice that a commitment in the hospital. him, going to be for that his first held “I therefore issue this certificate knowledge hearing of a he ar- was when disqualification mental and commit him hospital, been rived at that he has Hospital the Veterans Administration security in confined maximum continuously No, 3. The witness testified: “A sir. any Now, they appear “Q was there commit- formal in “Q Did ever a Hooper? Judge ment held? before No, required my knowledge. “A sir. It isn’t law. Not to “A they “Q appear Now— Did “Q Court with you? RUSSELL: “MR. ask that part knowledge. my last of his answer be stricken Not “A responsive. being out as not “Q These affidavits filed these Well, parties, “THE COURT: strike three those are affidavits your out. when used issued the com- Thompson, “Q Mr. the commitment or- mitment order? Williams, Yes, der shows that W. J. L. J. Ber- sir. “A ry, any E. Dr. J. “Q Kocour were examined Was other evidence used oath, they actually were with examined connection those affidavits? by Judge Hooper? No, “A sir.” twenty-four attendant is commitment was void in hours that the with fully person, petitioner was of mind at day, competent he sound is However, security no time the commitment. held for he . . by the they want to was offered reasons because know that I evidence whatsoever petitioner to his at time escape . the time he . .” and that at time, this other hospital “. . . the commitment or at was carried to the he was him- petitioner mentally, than the statement of perfect physically, health — was of sound On morally. .” He further testified self that he mind. Giles, commitment, that, the time other hand return Dr. W. of his jail charges against and the him Director of Veterans Alabama, Tuskegee, “Sec. 2312 Criminal of Ala- is to the effect were: bama, commonly sufficiently ‘is which is deficient known Act, Dyer dealing transportation with defective vehicle”; welfare, interstate commerce others’ re- stolen he be own care, restraint, charges hospital and that he knows the tained in said ” any dropped, although he seen has and treatment.’ never papers to that effect and never been has petition, petitioner In his did in court. *5 allege that he was then of sound mind. Berry deputy return, however, respondent’s respond that a In L. testified he was sheriff; peti- alleges petitioner ent he remembers is so when jail; tioner in was the knows deficient as to further confine witness Kocour; that, opinion in the the 'Dr. the ment for care and treatment and for witness, petitioner needed committed welfare of himself and Petitioner others. commitment; at the time the of his filed a of the return and denies traverse opinion of the fact the An fact allegations the witness is based thereof. issue of on petitioner constantly wanting petitioner’s sanity presented was was thus as trial, doctor quoting see the “all these case at the time but that not issue was corpuses every- numbers and try habeas did not the tried. Petitioner choose to thing like that” sanity which is the not issue of his at the time of the hear witness ing. familiar with and does not statement the understand. The counsel at hearing close of makes the this clear. We closing recital The in the record err opinion judge are of that the did not hearing conclusion of the is as follows: trying petitioner an did issue which Now, Russell, “THE COURT: tried Mr. choose to have and determined. you, your only I understand insistence argument As we understand his or contention this case he should is that brief, says petitioner he is entitled to any hearing have had notice of hospital released from because commitment, Court, and Probate of his order under which he was committed and prior to the order of commitment? says being is confined is He the or void. der “MR. RUSSELL: correct. is void because was made That’s without prior giving him and him notice to without Well, “THE is COURT: the Petition prior a hearing to commitment and denied.” opportunity prior hearing. to defend at a peti- order denying The of the court cites, cases, among Petitioner other Bar- following tioner’s release contains the re- 350, 222, ry Hall, App.D.C. v. 68 98 F.2d citals : in which the United States District Court corpus “In instant case the habeas for the District Columbia ordered patient instituted in- inquire not to into the release of a who had been commit- sanity Hospital. at this ted insane to petitioner, St. Elizabeth’s However, ground petition appellant time. held 4 The court said 474 prior makes no person
. . under a statute which notice to committed provision hearing opportunity for a because has the immediate to test legality for defense . . The statute . . of his detention a habeas lunacy is a corpus proceeding 15, 3, . not even intended as insanity commitment statute. It assumes recites: already appel- determined . .” “Any person confined as insane lant had transferred United from prosecute a writ of habeas States Marine Elizabeth’s St. provided in chapter; this and if the authority Secretary a letter from the judge, jury, or the when Treasury. arising demands issues to be tried jury, Barry,
In the District observed shall decide the hearing person insane, that certain authorities held a com- is such decision does prior not bar mitment is not un- application second alleging as denying process, person constitutional due if that such has been restored to sanity.” a later court afforded. The said: In addition to the authorities cited above quotation Barry, proposi- appellee urges also such cases is, us, supported tion as it seems to also Hill, W.D.Pa., 1915, D.C., as Hammon v. following: Tarwater, Moses v. 257 Ala. County 999; F. of Black Hawk v. 228 361, 757; Tarwater, 58 So.2d Doughty v. 1882, Springer, 417, 10 58 Iowa N.W. 263, 540; Ala. Coates, 261 73 So.2d In re 791; Dowdell, 1897, Petitioner, In re 169 242, 9 N.Y.2d N.Y.S.2d N.E.2d 1033, Am.St.Rep. 47 N.E.
Mass.
797;
Soucek,
Hiatt
v.
240 Iowa
290;
parte Dagley,
Ex
35 Okl.
Bryant,
N.W.2d
In re
214 La.
*6
L.R.A.,N.S„ 389;
699,
128 P.
44
In re
So.2d 245.
Crosswell, 1907,
Petition of Simon G.
137,
55,A.
R.I.
874. The
Ann.Cas.
opportunity
Petitioner has had the
statutes
involved
these cases were
to
present
have tried the
his
sanity
issue of
They
lunacy
require
statutes.
did not
in the instant case but chose
opportunity
notice and
to be heard
try
not to
issue. Petitioner has the
confinement,
advance of commitment and
right
today
petition
to file another
but
a hearing
did afford
at the in
later
15,
3,
habeas
under Title
and to
§
subject,
stance of the
in the Dowdell
tried, by
it,
have
jury if he demand
by special statutory
Case
proceeding,
of
sanity
issue
his
at the
time
hearing.
and
other
cases
the writ of
At
a such
proving
the burden corpus.
provisions
habeas
The
for ul
that petitioner is
mentally
so defective
as
timate hearing were
held to save
to
his confinement will be on the
statutes.
wrong
think the
We
cases are
respondent
presumes peti
because the law
ly decided.”
sane,
to be
yet,
tioner
court has
no
aft
agree
quoted
We do not
with last sentence
adjudged
hearing,
peti
er notice and
Barry.
from
tioner is
If
unsound or insane.4
competent
jurisdiction,
a court of
after
following proposition
The
and re-
stated
hearing,
adjudge
due notice and
shall
him
respondent
lied on by
be cor-
we hold to
insane,
proceed
then
again
he
rect law:
15, 3,
determined,
sanity
Title
to
§
pro-
no
lawfully
makes
but
he has
after
once been
ad
§
for,
process
vision
and due
require,
judged
insane,
does not
to be
burden of proof
4. “The law
presumes
every person
Welch,
sane
Assur.
Life
Soc. v.
239 Ala.
establishing
and casts the burden of
in-
So.
554.
sanity
Equitable
asserting
one
it.”
paren pa-
omitted)
legislature,
prove
on him to
restora-
then will be
extent,
triae, may,
provi-
make
sanity.
Jones, 275 Ala.
to some
v.
tion to
Jones
are unable
sion
the care
those who
481.
158 So.2d
themselves,
proper
to take
care of
Supreme
What
Judicial
persons
neglected
the case of insane
seems
said
a similar case
Massachusetts
(Citations omitted) And the
children.
appropriate here:
right
judicial proceedings
to institute
un-
protec-
der the
is a
statutes
sufficient
com-
“.
It is not denied
to
subject
tion of
of the
meet
pro-
in accordance with the
mitment was
requirements.
(Citations
constitutional
apply alike
statutes which
visions of the
omitted)” Dowdell, Petitioner, 169Mass.
of this common-
to all the inhabitants
terms,
upon
application of
the written
McCALL, JJ.,
concur.
son,
person
appears
if
so con-
it
insane,
fined is not
or that
is not
LAWSON,
(concurring special-
Justice
others,
ought
dangerous to himself or
ly.
so
longer
(Citation
confined.
holding
do
concur in the
omitted)
questions
court relative to the constitutional
noth-
settles
order
commitment
has written.
ing finally
conclusively against
It is
that the appellant sought
obvious
person
does not take
*7
committed.
It
by
his
avoid determination
the court as to
property.
his
him the care or control of
sanity
at the time of the
and al-
appointment
equivalent
It is not
to the
though
question may
that
not have been
guardian
(Citation
over
omit-
of
him.
case,
technically
pleadings
the
within the
entitled,
right,
a matter
ted) He is
of
yet
appears
judg-
from the
affirmatively
judicial proceedings under
to institute
concluding
court in
ment
the trial
necessity
statutes,
the
to determine
discharged gave
appellant
should
He is
propriety
of
confinement.
Director
the return of the
consideration
protection of
denied the same
Tuskegee to
of the Veterans
by
per-
enjoyed
all other
which is
laws
condition
appellant’s mental
the effect that
like
sons in the Commonwealth
discharged.
such that he should not be
not, therefore, de-
He is
circumstances.
case,
con-
posture
of
of the
I
In view that
due process
prived of
of
judgment
in the
affirmance of
cur
law, according
judicial con-
authority of Moses v.
court
the trial
put upon those
has
struction which
361,
Tarwater,
Ala.
clauses of the felt we needed to reach State and Federal Con- judgment being stitutions. would reverse this Clearly these statutes author- convinc- parte ize ex ed that process” examination notice was denied “due without heard, and a of law in denied a before followed forc- ed the consent commitment. confinement individual whose is taken [Emphasis him." supplied] MADDOX, J., foregoing concurs ironic, least, say Is it not special BLOODWORTH, that this concurrence of court holds person’s liberty that a may be