Court Opinion

ID: 9543005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:41:06.289775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:26.325135
License: Public Domain

NOURSE, P. J.
I dissent. I agree with what is said in In re Bundy, 44 Cal.App. 466 [186 P. 811], in which the Supreme Court denied a hearing. That is a well reasoned opinion and, with the approval of the Supreme Court, has been the settled law of procedure for the last 30 years. The Legislature has never shown any intention of changing that rule. On the other hand Knight v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.2d 838 [214 P.2d 21], does not consider the question at all, the court merely saying (p. 839) : “Without reviewing the authorities, this court is definitely of the opinion that the trial court was in error in this respect.” The Knight case did not go tO' the Supreme Court so there is direct conflict of decision between the second and third districts which cannot be cleared by any opinion of this district.
I cannot believe that the Legislature contemplated a jury trial in section 1461 of the Probate Code since it provided for a trial by jury for “restoration” within five days of the commitment. (Prob. Code, § 1470.) Section 5125, Welfare and Institutions Code, is based on section 2174 of the Political Code enacted in 1903 relating to hearing by jury of those adjudged insane. This right of trial by jury for restoration completely negatives any theory that a jury trial was contemplated for *623the original commitment because if such trial is authorized under the theory of the majority opinion the losing party would have the right to move for a new trial and to appeal. During all that period a new trial to a new jury could be had under section 1471 of the Probate Code. It would not be possible to determine which of the two verdicts was operative and endless confusion would follow.
I believe the better reasoning is that Probate Code, section 1460 et seq. contemplate a summary proceeding to take immediate charge of an incompetent and his estate, preserving his right to demand a quick trial by jury if he so desires.
Real Party in Interest’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied July 13, 1950. Spence, J., voted for a hearing.