Court Opinion

ID: 9740386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:34:14.267029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:18.023878
License: Public Domain

Boyles, J.
(dissenting). The facts are correctly stated in Justice Dethmers’ opinion. However, I •think that there were allegations of facts in the petition sufficient to give the probate court jurisdiction. ■The statute in effect at .the time the petition was filed* required that a petition for an order directing the admission of a person alleged to be insane, feeble-minded or epileptic .to a hospital, home or institution for the care of the insane, feeble-minded or epileptic shall “contain a statement giving the facts and not the conclusions upon which the allegation of such mental disease is based.” I think that there were allegations of facts stated in the petition, where it alleged that the respondent was “simple, childish, immature, cannot read or write, I.Q. of 41, behavior typical of an imbecile,” to comply with the statute.
Similarly, the statute† required the certificates of 2 physicians which “must show that it is their opinion that the person is actually insane, or feeble-minded, or epileptic, as the case may be, and shall contain the facts and circumstances upon ivhich the opinion of the physician is based.” The statute did not require that the physicians have personal knowledge of said facts and circumstances, or swear to the truth of them. I think there were facts and circumstances stated in the 2 physician^’ certificates (correctly quoted by Justice Dethmers) which satisfied the statutory requirement.
*490For tbe above reasons, I do not concur in issuing an order for the discharge of the patient.
North and Butzel, JJ., concurred with Boyles, J.

 OL 1948, § 330.21 (Stat Ann 1947 Cum Supp § 14.811). The later amendment by PA 1949, No 313, does not apply.

 CL 1948, § 330.20 (Stat Ann 1947 Cum Supp § 14.810). The later amendment by PA 1949, No 313, does not apply.