Purdum v. Lilly

Bailey, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On August 2, 1943, Lillian W. Purdum, next friend of Sophia Lilly, an alleged lunatic, filed a petition in the ⁶¹⁴ Circuit Court for Baltimore County, in equity, naming the appellees herein as defendants and praying, as a part of the relief sought, that a writ of de lunático inquirendo be issued to the sheriff of Baltimore County to inquire into the lunacy of the said Sophia Lilly. The petition alleged “that the said Sophia Lilly is now and has been for some time past of unsound mind and non compos mentis, without lucid intervals; that she is now incompetent and has been incompetent for some time past to manage her property and affairs; that she is about ninety years of age; and has for a long time past been in feeble health with her faculties weak and impaired.” Further allegations of the petition were to the effect that the petitioner was the niece of Sophia Lilly; that the alleged lunatic had been for some time past a patient at the Daughters of the Eucharist, Maiden Choice Lane, Catonsville, Baltimore County, Maryland; that she was possessed of a considerable estate in Baltimore County and Baltimore City, consisting of real property, mortgages and cash in bank; that, while she was of unsound mind, without lucid intervals, she was prevailed upon to convey her home in Catonsville and to transfer a large amount of cash in bank to one of the defendants, Frank Wilson; and that, unless the court assumed jurisdiction and passed such orders as might be necessary for the protection of the estate of the alleged incompetent, the said estate would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Upon this petition, which was sworn to by the appellant, the chancellor passed an order directing the writ of de lunático inquirendo to issue to the sheriff of Baltimore County and requiring the defendants to show cause, on or before August 16, 1943, why the other relief prayed for in the petition should, not be granted.

On August 16,1943, the defendant, Frank Wilson, filed two answers to the petition, one in his individual capacity and one as next friend of Sophia Lilly, the alleged lunatic. In his answer as next friend it is alleged that Sophia Lilly is living with the said Frank Wilson, in his ⁶¹⁵ home at 3 Park Drive, CatonsvilJe; that she “is feeble and her faculties somewhat impaired by age”; that her attending physician has assured him “that the said Sophia Lilly is not of unsound mind and non compos mentis, but her mind is impaired by age and is known as feeble mindedness, and that at times her mental condition is alert, but at other times she is unable to make wise and discrete decisions”; that “it would probably be to the interest and advantage of the said Sophia Lilly if some one in whom she has always had confidence were appointed her trustee to manage and control her affairs for her benefit”; that her estate “will not suffer irreparable loss and injury if no one is appointed for her, because your respondent has always taken care of her and her affairs under her direction with the advice of her private counsel, and your respondent will continue to do so until this Court deems it right and proper to appoint a trustee for her”; and that he “believes it would excite, disturb and be harmful to the said Sophia Lilly if she is compelled to appear before a sheriff’s jury at the time of the hearing of this cause, and he will file in this proceeding within the next five days, certificates of physicians certifying as to the mental and physical condition of the said Sophia Lilly, and further certifying that it would be harmful to require her attendance before a sheriff’s jury.” There were similar allegations in his individual answer, which concluded with the allegation that “there is no danger of the estate of the said Sophia Lilly suffering loss or injury because your respondent, with the guidance and advice of counsel of the said Sophia Lilly, and members of her family, has safeguared the estate of the said Sophia Lilly, and shall continue to do so until this Court determines that it be right and proper to appoint a Trustee for that purpose.” Both answers are sworn to. The physieans’ certificates referred to in the first answer were filed on August 18, 1943. The certificate of Dr. George E. Urban, duly sworn to, stated that “he has examined Sophia Lilly as to her mental and physical ⁶¹⁶ condition, and from his observation and examination he is of the opinion that she is not of unsound mind and a lunatic, but her mind is impaired by age (simple senile deterioration) ; and * * * that the present condition of the said Sophia Lilly is such that it would cause her annoyance, distress of mind and greatly upset and disturb her to require her to appear before a Sheriff’s jury at the time her sanity is inquired into.” The certificate of Dr. J. Carroll Monmonier, also duly sworn to, stated that “he has attended Sophia Lilly for a period of over twenty years and has examined her as to her mental condition, and from his observation and examination he is of the opinion that she is not capable of taking care of her personal affairs and requires nursing care of which she has been and is now well provided; and * * * that the present condition of the said Sophia Lilly is such that it might cause serious injury to her to appear before a Sheriff’s Jury at the time her sanity is inquired into.” On August 18, 1943, the appellant filed with the court a petition containing the following allegations: “One.

That the object of the petition is to secure an Order of Court directing that Dr. Ralph Truitt and one other physician to be approved by him be permitted to interview Sophia Lilly, the alleged incompetent, in order to enable such physicians to testify before the Sheriff’s Jury, before whom this cause is to be tried. “Two. That so your petitioner is advised the alleged incompetent will not appear before said jury; that petitioner is advised by Dr. Ralph Truitt (who is the Chief Physician in the clinic of Mental Hygiene of the University of Maryland Hospital) that in order for him to testify before the Jury intelligently, it is necessary for him to make personal acquaintance of the alleged incompetent; that petitioner is advised the respondent is not willing without a Court Order to permit such interview with alleged incompetent to be had. “Three. That petitioner is advised it is proper for her to apply to this Court for an order giving the relief above set forth.” ⁶¹⁷ The petition then prayed that the court pass an order directing that Dr. Truitt and one other physician'be permitted to interview Mrs. Lilly. Upon this petition the chancellor passed the following order: “It is ordered by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, in Equity, this 18th day of August, 1948, counsel for Petitioner and Respondent having been fully heard, that the relief prayed for in the aforegoing Petition be and the same is hereby denied.” It is from this order that the first appeal in this record was taken on August 18, 1943.

The original petition in this case was filed pursuant to the authority contained in Section 123, Article 16, Code of 1939, which reads as follows: “The court shall have full power and authority, in all cases, to superintend and direct the affairs of persons non compotes mentis, both as to the care of their persons and the management of their estates, and may appoint a committee, or a trustee or trustees for such persons, and may make such orders and decrees respecting their persons and estates as to the court may seem proper.” This section of the Code, which was originally enacted by the Act of 1875, Chap. 72, Sec. 6, confers upon courts of equity general jurisdiction with respect to persons non compotes mentis, but does not prescribe the method by which the incapacity shall be ascertained. It was held in Ex parte Estate of Bristor, 115 Md. 614, 619 , 81 A. 25 , that the course of procedure leading up to an adjudication of mental unsoundness remains as it existed, independently of statute, under the English practice. The history of this practice and the origin of the jurisdiction of courts of equity in such cases has been stated by Judge McSherry in Hamilton v. Traber, 78 Md. 26 , 27 A. 229 , and by Judge Thomas in Bliss v. Bliss, 133 Md. 61 , 104 A. 467 . It would serve no useful purpose to repeat them in this opinion.

It is sufficient to state that the jurisdiction of equity under this section depends upon the party being non compos mentis and that the adjudication must be based upon the finding of a sheriff’s jury under a writ ⁶¹⁸ of de lunatico inquirendo. Greenwade v. Greenwade, 43 Md. 313 . However, for the court to assume control over the person and estate of one alleged to be of unsound mind, proof of the entire absence of reason, understanding or memory is not required. While the courts jealously guard against the invasion of rights of persons and property under the guise of such proceedings, they will afford protection to the person and his estate where any species of mental unsoundness is clearly shown to incapacitate him from protecting either himself or his estate against his own weakness or the artifice of others.

Johnson v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 104 Md. 460 , 65 A. 333 . In Owings’ Case, 1 Bland 370 , at