Adams v. May

Markell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case has been treated as an appeal from an order, passed after hearing on a petition of the Superintendent of Eastern Shore State Hospital under sections 22 and 34A of Article 59 of the Code, remanding appellant to the hospital “in accordance with the terms of her commitment.” On February 12, 1941 appellant was received as a patient at the hospital upon the written authority of the County Commissioners of Cecil County and the certificates, dated January 25, 1941, of two physicians, in accordance with the provisions of section 34 of Article 59, (Acts of 1886, ch. 487 and 1900, ch. 603). Section 22, Acts of 1920, ch. 682, was amended, and section 34A enacted, by Chapter 14 of the Acts of 1944, Special Session, amended by Chapter 387 of the Acts of 1945. On September 14, 1949 a written request for discharge ¹⁵⁶ was made by appellant “as provided by section 34A”.

The superintendent, being of the opinion that appellant’s mental condition required her further detention, did not comply with her request. On November 28, 1949 he filed a. petition, alleging these facts and praying that she be brought before the court, in accordance with the provisions of section 22, as amended, for the purpose of having her sanity determined. On the same day an order was passed that she be produced before the court the next day. On November 29, 1949 she was produced and the order was passed remanding her to the hospital “in accordance with the terms of her commitment.” A letter from appellant to Judge Henry, dated November 29, 1949, received and filed December 3, 1949, has been treated by Judge Henry and by us as an order for appeal to this court.

There' was no appearance of counsel for appellant in the lower court or in this court and no brief or argument for her in this court. The record contains no trans-script of proceedings below and from the appellee’s brief it appears that there was no stenographer at the hearing. There were transmitted to this court the letter from appellant dated November 29, 1949 and a subsequent letter to Judge Henry. We have since received a letter from her.

All three letters are in large part illegible or else unintelligible. There is no express provision in section 22 or 34A or elsewhere for appeal from an order passed under either section. The Attorney General submits that, by analogy to Ex parte Bristor’s Estate, 115 Md. 614 , 81 A. 25 , an appeal should lie. We have reached this conclusion.

Section 34 provides that no person shall be committed to or confined as a patient in any institution for the insane except upon the written certificates of two physicians. It makes no provision for legal proceedings or adjudication before or after commitment or confinement. The oldest method of adjudicating the question of insanity is by the writ de lunático inquirendo, ¹⁵⁷ which is within the general chancery powers relating to persons non compotes mentis under Art. 16, sec. 123 of the Code, Acts of 1785, ch. 72, sec. 6. Under Art. 5, sec. 30, (Acts of 1785, ch. 72, sec. 29), authorizing appeals from “any final decree, or order in the nature of a final decree”, of a court of equity, an appeal will lie from an order confirming an inquisition, or refusing to rescind the decree of confirmation for alleged irregularity in the proceedings, or refusing to supersede the inquisition because of restoration to sanity.

Ex parte Bristor’s Estate, supra, 115 Md. 618 , 81 A. 25 . By Chapter 751 of the Acts of 1947, (amended Acts of 1947, Extra Session, ch. 71, Art. 16, Sec. 124A), the use of a sheriff’s jury in proceedings on the writ is abolished and provision is made for determination of the question of sanity in a court of equity, by a jury empanelled as “in other civil cases.” Section 22 of Article 59, (as enacted in 1920), provided for application “to any of law courts” of Baltimore or “any of the Circuit Courts” of the state by or on behalf of any person confined in an institution because of insanity or mental disorder, and determination of the “question of sanity or insanity or mental disorder” by a jury. The language of the section was equally applicable to a person committed without previous adjudication or one who had previously been adjudged insane and claimed to have recovered. By the Acts of 1944 and 1945, section 34A was enacted, expressly authorizing “commitment” to