Case ID: ohio-st_63/html/0335-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commissioners of Cuyahoga County v. The City of Cleveland.
    
      Oare of insane needy persons — Who cannot he admitted to asylum —Rests on county where they have legal settlement.
    
    The burden of caring for insane persons in needy circumstances, who can not be admitted to an asylum, rests upon the county in which they have their legal settlement.
    (Decided November 13, 1900.)
    Error to the circuit court of Cuyahoga county.
    The action below was brought by the city of Cleveland, a municipal corporation of the first class and second grade, against the commissioners of Cuyahoga county, to recover the sum of $12,513.71, expended by the plaintiff in providing food, clothing and other necessaries, to various persons who were adjudged'insane by the probate.judge of that county. The petition alleges that the county of Cuyahoga has no infirmary, but that the plaintiff, whose corporate limits are co-extensive with the township in which it is. situated, has a city infirmary, and that the sum named was expended by the plaintiff upon the order of the probate judge at various times, up to December, 1896, for the support and care of insane persons in that, county who could not be admitted to any asylum. An itemized statement of the amounts so expended, the times when expended, and the names of persons for whose support they were expended, is attached to the petition. In addition to these facts the petition alleges that “each and all of said persons were duly brought before the judge of the probate court of said county upon an inquest of lunacy,'and upon full hearing before said court, each and all of said. persons were found and adjudged by tbe probate judge to be insane persons, in needy circumstances, requiring public support and relief, and residents of, and having their legal settlements in said city of Cleveland, and were each duly committed to the superintendent of the city infirmary qf the city of Cleveland, he being found by the judge of said probate court to be a suitable person; and that neither of said persons could, at any time, be admitted into any asylum •of said state, before, or’at any time since;” and that “all of said persons were in fact, as found by said •court, insane and indigent persons, needing public relief and support, and were residents of and had their legal settlement in said city of Cleveland at the time of their commitment to said superintendent, ■and were duly committed by said court to the superintendent of the Cleveland city infirmary as aforesaid because they could not be received into an any asylum •of this state, and were so committed to the superintendent of the Cleveland city infirmary upon the order •of the said probate court; that the cost and expense of the care, maintenance and support of each of said persons be paid out of the county treasury:” The petition further alleges that “the lodging, care, food, ■clothing and attendance furnished the said persons were necessary, said persons being needy, and were furnished by this plaintiff to said several persons in accordance with the statement herewith filed, and that the prices charged therefor are reasonable and just.”
    The defendant filed a general demurrer to the petition, which was sustained by the court of common pleas, and final judgment rendered thereon for the defendant. That judgment was leversed by the cir •cuit court, from which error is prosecuted here.
    
      
      P. E. Kaiser, county solicitor, and F. L. Taft, assistant county solicitor, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      T. E. Eogsett and Beacom, Excell, Gage & Oarey, for defendant in error.
   By the Court:

The question involved is whether the burden of caring for insane persons in needy circumstances, who can not be admitted to an asylum, rests upon the county in which they have a legal settlement, or must be borne by the township in which they reside. If the burden rests upon the county, there was no error in the judgment of the circuit court. The subject is regulated by statute, the provision of which must determine the controversy. Our statute provides that each county is entitled to send patients to the asylum of the district in which such county is situated, in proportion to the population of such county; that the medical superintendent of each of the asylums shall inform the probate judge of the different counties comprising the district, monthly, of the quota of patients to which each county is entitled, and the number in the asylum from. said county; that the probate judge, when a person is adjudged insane, shall apply to the superintendent of the asylum for the insane situated in the district in which such patient resides, for admission of such insane person thereto; and upon receiving the application the superintendent shall immediately advise the probate judge whether the patient can be received; and, that when a patient is sent to the asylum for the insane, the probate judge shall see that he is supplied with the proper clothing, and, if not otherwise furnished, he shall furnish such clothing, and in such case, the same shall be paid for upon his certificate and the order of the county auditor, out of the county treasury. Sections 698 to 706, Revised Statutes.

Then Section 707 contains the provision that, “if a person found to be insane cannot be admitted into the asylum, the probate judge shall direct the sheriff of the county, or some other suitable person, to take charge of such insane person until the cause of non-admission is removed, and if necessary, he may direct the confinement of such insane person in the county infirmary or jail (but not in the same room with a person charged with or convicted of a crime), as the circumstances require; and if all things needful are not otherwise supplied, he shall furnish them, and in that case, they shall be paid for out of the county treasury, on the certificate of the probate judge; but he shall not in any case furnish anything to * * * a person who is not in needy circumstances.”

These provisions govern the case; and from them, it seems reasonably clear that the county is ultimately bound for the payment of the expense of taking care of all insane persons having a settlement therein, who are in needy circumstances, and cannot be received into an asylum. And it sufficiently appears from the petition that the persons for whose support the action below was brought were committed to the care of the superintendent of the plaintiff’s infirmary, because he was found to be a suitable person to have the care of them, and they could not legally be admitted to an asylum.

Judgment affirmed.