13 N.E.2d 127 | Ohio | 1938
For his remedy in this controversy the relator relies upon the case of State, ex rel. Taylor, Admr., v. Gregory, Judge,
The question of law now before this court for determination is whether the action of the Probate Court of Franklin county in the lunacy inquest of 1934: was of such a nature as to render its jurisdiction continuous and exclusive in this matter, thereby precluding the attempted guardianship
proceeding in Tuscarawas county nearly three years later. The relator relies upon the first paragraph of the syllabus in the case of Heckman v. Adams,
"Any insane person having a legal residence in the *262 state of Ohio, but who may be temporarily residing or detained in a county other than that of his legal residence, may be legally committed to a state hospital by the Probate Judge of the county in which such person is temporarily residing or detained."
In the case of Heckman v. Adams, supra, the court relied also upon Sections 709, 710 and 714, Revised Statutes, relating to state hospitals for the insane. These sections likewise were repealed and replaced by Sections 1964 to 1971 inclusive, and 1977, General Code, part of which remained in effect until January 1, 1938. A careful study of these provisions discloses nothing to indicate a legislative intent to clothe a committing Probate Court with continuing exclusive jurisdiction over the person of the patient. On the contrary, the superintendent of the hospital may at any time discharge a patient with the written consent of the Director of the Department of Public Welfare; and as was done in the instant case, the superintendent has plenary power to permit a patient to leave the hospital on a trial visit of whatever duration the superintendent may deem proper. At any time during such visit the superintendent may have the patient return to the hospital without further legal proceedings. Thus the Probate Court of Franklin county did not have continuing exclusive jurisdiction over the person of Lucy Ann Hevlow, and the Probate Court of Tuscarawas county was authorized to take the guardianship action of which the relator complains. The writ must be denied and the action dismissed at the relator's costs.
Writ denied.
MATTHIAS, DAY, ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAMS and GORMAN, JJ., concur. *263