Case Name: In re SALLOUM
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1926-10-22
Citations: 236 Mich. 478
Docket Number: Docket No. 21
Parties: In re SALLOUM.
Judges: Sharpe, Steere, and Clark, JJ., concurred with McDonald, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 236
Pages: 478–479

Head Matter:
In re SALLOUM.
Insane Persons — Sterilization oe Feeble-Minded Persons — Constitutional Law — Statutes—Police Power.
Act No. 285, Pub. Acts 1923, providing for the sterilization of feeble-minded persons held, constitutional; ease being controlled by Smith v. Wayne Probate Judge, 231 Mich. 409.
Error to Wayne; Warner (Glenn E.), J., presiding.
Submitted October 6, 1926.
(Docket No. 21.)
Decided October 22, 1926.
Rehearing denied January 3, 1927.
Petition by Anna Schneller, under Act No. 285, Pub. Acts 1923, for the sterilization of Agnes Salloum, a feeble-minded person. Fred M. Butzel was appointed guardian ad litem,. There was an order of the probate court granting the petition, and said guardian ad litem, appealed to the circuit court. Judgment sustaining the probate order. Defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
William, Van Dyke (Thomas G. Long, of counsel), for appellant.
Insane Persons, 32 C. J. § 162 (Anno).

Opinion:
McDonald, J.
On June 12, 1923, Agnes Salloum, 18 years of age, was adjudged a feeble-minded person and committed to the Michigan Home and Training School at Lapeer, by the probate court for Wayne county, Michigan. Thereafter, on petition of her mother, proceedings were regularly taken under Act No. 285, Pub. Acts 1923, and on May 29, 1926, an order was entered by the Wayne probate court providing for her sterilization by the operation of saipin- gectomy. From this order her guardian ad litem, Fred M. Butzel, appealed to the circuit court claiming that the act under which the proceedings were had is unconstitutional. On the hearing, the order of the probate court was affirmed. It is here sought by writ of error to review the judgment of the circuit court.
The record presents only constitutional objections to the act. The same questions were before this court and were disposed of adversely to the defendant's claim in Smith v. Wayne Probate Judge, 231 Mich. 409.
The judgment is affirmed.
Sharpe, Steere, and Clark, JJ., concurred with McDonald, J.
Wiest, J.
We believe the decision of this court in Smith v. Wayne Probate Judge, 231 Mich. 409, should be overruled for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion filed therein.
If the decision in the Smith Case is not overruled then the judgment in this case must be affirmed.
Bird, C. J., and Snow and Fellows, JJ., concurred with Wiest, J.