Omission of the statutes of New York concerning proceedings
de lunatico inquirendo (Code of Civil Procedure, 1898, §§
2320,
et seq.) to provide expressly that notice of and
opportunity to be heard at the inquisition shall be afforded to the
alleged incompetent
held not violative of the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it appearing by the decisions
of the highest court of the state that the requisite notice and
opportunity are otherwise impliedly afforded under the state
law.
In proceedings under the New York statutes,
supra,
which resulted in the appointment of a committee of plaintiff's
person and estate, the plaintiff, who was committed at a private
hospital at the time, was served with notice of the application to
appoint a commission to inquire into his mental capacity, of the
inquisition, and of the motion to confirm its finding and appoint
the committee. He was physically able to attend, but did not
appear, ask anyone to represent him, or seek an adjournment. At the
inquisition, the commission and jury, after hearing witnesses,
concluded that his attendance was unnecessary, and did not require
it, there being evidence that, if enforced, it would be detrimental
to his mind.
Held that due process was satisfied, and that
the order appointing the committee was not open to collateral
attack.
Subsequently the court accepted the resignation of the committee
and appointed another in his stead, without giving notice or
affording opportunity to be heard to the plaintiff or the other
persons interested in the original proceedings.
Held not
violative of due process.
Orders of a state court declaring a person found within the
state incapable of managing himself and his affairs and appointing
a committee of his person and his property within the state are not
assailable collaterally by proof that he was and remained a citizen
and resident of another state, or that he was served in the
proceedings through being corruptly lured into the first state and
there illegally committed to a private hospital, or that the
adjudication of insanity
Page 242 U. S. 456
was made on perjured evidence while he was actually sane, or
that his sanity and competency have been established by a later
adjudication of a court of his domicile and have since
continued.
215 F. 867 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action in which the plaintiff seeks damages for
withholding his securities and moneys. The defendant sets up as
justification that he received and held the property by virtue of
two orders of the Supreme Court of New York, appointing him
committee of the person and estate of the plaintiff as one
"incompetent to manage himself and his affairs." The validity and
alleged effect of these orders were denied by plaintiff. The action
was brought in 1904 in the Circuit Court of the United States for
the Southern District of New York; was transferred to the district
court January, 1912, by virtue of Judicial Code, § 290, and was
tried before a jury in that year. A verdict was directed for the
defendant at the close of the plaintiff's case, and the judgment
entered thereon was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. The
case comes here upon writ of error.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a citizen and
resident of Virginia and the defendant a citizen and resident of
New York, but federal jurisdiction was not rested solely on
diversity of citizenship. The complaint alleged also that the
orders of the supreme court of New
Page 242 U. S. 457
York upon which defendant relies are void as having been entered
without due process of law, in violation of the federal
Constitution. The contention was insisted upon in both the lower
courts. This Court has therefore jurisdiction to review the whole
case.
Howard v. United States, 184 U.
S. 676,
184 U. S.
681.
The orders under which defendant justifies were that of June 23,
1899, adjudging plaintiff incompetent, appointing a committee of
his person and estate, and naming one Butler as such, and that of
November 19, 1901, appointing defendant as his successor. These
orders were made under statutes of New York, the material portions
of which are set forth in the margin.
* The proceedings
were
Page 242 U. S. 458
held in New York city, where much of plaintiff's property was
located. For over two years prior to the entry of the earlier
order, plaintiff had been an inmate of Bloomingdale,
Page 242 U. S. 459
a private hospital near that city. At each stage in the
proceeding leading up to the order of June 23, he was personally
served there with notice and was given an opportunity to be heard.
Thus, he had notice of the motion, on May 19, to appoint the
commission
de lunatico inquirendo, of the inquisition on
June 12, and of the motion
Page 242 U. S. 460
to confirm the inquisition and for appointment of a committee on
June 23. Such notice and opportunity to be heard at the inquisition
was required by the law of New York, though not expressly recited
in the statute;
Matter of Blewitt, 30 N.E. 587;
Gridley v. College of St. Francis Xavier, 137 N.Y. 327;
Matter of Fox, 138 App.Div. 43. Plaintiff was physically
able to be present at this hearing. But he did not appear, did not
send anyone to represent him, nor ask for all adjournment. At the
inquisition, the commission and the jury, after hearing witnesses,
concluded that his attendance was unnecessary, and did not require
him to attend. There was evidence
Page 242 U. S. 461
that his enforced attendance would be detrimental to his mental
health.
As the plaintiff had notice and opportunity to be heard at each
stage of these proceedings, the essential elements of due process
of law were fully met, and the court had jurisdiction to enter that
order. It is not open to collateral attack, although plaintiff was
then under commitment at Bloomingdale.
See Simon v. Craft,
182 U. S. 427. The
order of November 19, 1901, accepting Butler's resignation as
committee and appointing defendant in his place, was made by the
court without notice either to the plaintiff or to the other
parties to the original proceedings. But this was a mere
substitution of one officer of the court for another. No
substantial right of the plaintiff was affected. Due process does
not require notice and opportunity to be heard in such a
proceeding, and the irregularity, if any, was not such as to
prevent the court from exercising jurisdiction to determine the
matter.
The validity of the orders was assailed and their effect
contested also on other grounds. It was contended that plaintiff
had been corruptly lured from his home in Virginia to New York in
March, 1897, and then illegally committed to Bloomingdale, and that
he could not otherwise have been served in New York at all in the
1899 proceedings; that, in 1899, plaintiff was a resident of
Virginia; that the adjudication of incompetency in 1899 was made on
perjured evidence, and that the plaintiff was then of sound mind
and competent to manage his affairs. It was also contended that,
about November 6, 1901, the plaintiff, being a citizen and resident
of Albemarle County, Virginia, was adjudged by its county court to
be of sound mind and capable of managing his person and estate;
that he was such at the time of the commencement of this action and
has been since. Much evidence was offered to support these
contentions, but the facts, if established, could not overcome the
defense presented by the orders
Page 242 U. S. 462
of the supreme court of New York. That court had jurisdiction
because the plaintiff and his property were in New York, and the
essentials of due process of law were met. The orders,
consequently, are not void, and they are not subject to this
collateral attack. If it be true that the orders ought to be set
aside, either because they were, as alleged, entered corruptly,
irregularly, or inadvertently (
see United States v.
Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61;
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113,
159 U. S.
207), or because, owing to a change in plaintiff's
condition, a committee is no longer required, the remedy must be
sought by a direct proceeding to that end (
Matter of
Curtiss, 137 App.Div. 584, 199 N.Y. 36). No evidence was
introduced to prove that even an attempt was made to vacate or
modify the orders. In this action of trover, which seeks merely
damages for alleged wrongful withholding of plaintiff's property,
the existing orders constitute a complete defense. The evidence
offered was properly excluded, and there was no error in directing
a verdict for the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
* New York Code of Civil Procedure, 1898.
"2320.
Jurisdiction; concurrent jurisdiction."
"The jurisdiction of the supreme court extends to the custody of
the person, and the care of the property, of a person incompetent
to manage himself or his affairs, in consequence of lunacy, idiocy,
habitual drunkenness, or imbecility arising from old age or loss of
memory and understanding, or other cause. . . ."
"2322.
Committee may be appointed."
"The jurisdiction specified in the last two sections must be
exercised by means of a committee of the person, or a committee of
the property, or of a particular portion of the property, of the
incompetent person, appointed as prescribed in this title. The
committee of the person and the committee of the property may be
the same individual, or different individuals, in the discretion of
the court."
"2323.
Application for committee; by whom made."
"An application for the appointment of such a committee must be
made by petition, which may be presented by any person. Except as
provided in the next section, where the application is made to the
supreme court, the petition must be presented at a special term
held within the judicial district, or to a justice of said court
within such judicial district at chambers, where the person alleged
to be incompetent resides, or if he is not a resident of the state,
or the place of his residence cannot be ascertained, where some of
his property is situated, or the state institution is situated or
which he is an inmate."
"
* * * *"
"2325.
Contents, etc., of petition; proceedings upon
presentation thereof."
"The petition must be in writing, and verified by the affidavit
of the petitioner, or his attorney, to the effect that the matters
of fact therein stated are true. It must be accompanied with proof,
by affidavit, that the case is one of those specified in this
title. It must set forth the names and residences of the husband or
wife, if any, and of the next of kin and heirs, of the person
alleged to be incompetent, as far as the same are known to the
petitioner, or can, with reasonable diligence, be ascertained by
him, and also the probable value of the property possessed and
owned by the alleged incompetent person, and what property has been
conveyed during said alleged incompetency and to whom, and its
value and what consideration was paid for it, if any, or was agreed
to be paid. The court must, unless sufficient reasons for
dispensing therewith are set forth, in the petition or accompanying
affidavit, require notice of the presentation of the petition to be
given to the husband or wife, if any, or to one or more of the
relatives of the person alleged to be incompetent, or to an officer
specified in the last section. When notice is required, it may be
given in any manner, which the court deems proper, and for that
purpose, the hearing may be adjourned to a subsequent day, or to
another term at which the petition might have been presented."
"
* * * *"
"2327.
Order for commission, or for trial by jury in
courts."
"Unless an order is made, as prescribed in the last section, if
it presumptively appears, to the satisfaction of the court, from
the petition and the proofs accompanying it, that the case is one
of those specified in this title, and that a committee ought, in
the exercise of a sound discretion, to be appointed; the court must
make an order, directing, either"
"1. That a commission issue, as prescribed in the next section,
to one or more fit persons, designated in the order; or"
"2. That the question of fact, arising upon the competency of
the person, with respect to whom the petition prays for the
appointment of a committee, be tried by a jury at a trial term of
the court."
"
* * * *"
"2328.
Contents of commission."
"The commission must direct the commissioners to cause the
sheriff of a county, specified therein, to procure a jury, and that
they inquire, by the jury, into the matters set forth in the
petition, and also into the value of the real and personal property
of the person alleged to be incompetent, and the amount of his
income. It may contain such other directions, with respect to the
subjects of inquiry, or the manner of executing the commission, as
the court directs to be inserted therein."
"
* * * *"
"2330.
Jury to be procured; proceedings thereupon."
"The commissioners, or a majority of them, must immediately
issue a precept to the sheriff, designated in the commission,
requiring him to notify, not less than twelve nor more than
twenty-four indifferent persons, qualified to serve, and not exempt
from serving, as trial jurors in the same court, to appear before
the commissioners at a specified time and place, within the county,
to make inquiry, as commanded by the commission. . . ."
"2331.
Proceedings upon the hearing."
"All the commissioners must attend and preside at the hearing,
and they, or a majority of them, have, with respect to the
proceedings upon the hearing, all the power and authority of a
judge of the court, holding a trial term, subject to the directions
contained in the commission. Either of the commissioners may
administer the usual oath to the jurors. At least twelve jurors
must concur in a finding. If twelve do not concur, the jurors must
report their disagreement to the commissioners, who must thereupon
discharge them, and issue a new precept to the sheriff, to procure
another jury."
"2332.
Return of inquisition and commission."
"The inquisition must be signed by the jurors concurring
therein, and by the commissioners, or a majority of them, and
annexed to the commission. The commission and inquisition must be
returned by the commissioners, and filed with the clerk."
"
* * * *"
"2334.
Proceedings upon trial by jury in court."
"Where an order is made, directing the trial, by a jury at a
trial term, of the questions of fact, arising upon the competency
of the person, with respect to whom the petition prays for the
appointment of a committee, the order must state, distinctly and
plainly, the questions of fact to be tried; which may be settled as
where an order for a similar trial is made in an action. The court
may, in that or in a subsequent order, direct that notice of the
trial be given to such persons, and in such a manner as is deemed
proper. The trial must be reviewed in the same manner, with like
effect, and, except as otherwise directed in the order, the
proceedings thereupon are, in all respects, the same as where
questions of fact are tried, pursuant to an order for that purpose.
The court may make inquiry by means of a reference or otherwise, as
it thinks proper, with respect to any matter, not involved in the
questions tried by the jury, the determination of which is
necessary in the course of the proceedings. The expenses of the
trial, and of such an inquiry, must be paid by the petitioner."
"
* * * *"
"2339.
Committee under control of court; limitation of
powers."
"A committee, either of the person or of the property, is
subject to the direction and control of the court by which he was
appointed, with respect to the execution of his duties, and he may
be suspended, removed, or allowed to resign, in the discretion of
the court. A vacancy created by death, removal, or resignation may
be filled by the court. But a committee of the property cannot
alien, mortgage, or otherwise dispose of, real property, except to
lease it for a term not exceeding five years, without the special
direction of the court, obtained upon proceedings taken for that
purpose, as prescribed in title seventh of this chapter."