State v. Linderholm

114 P. 857, 84 Kan. 603, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 377
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedApril 8, 1911
DocketNo. 17,011
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 114 P. 857 (State v. Linderholm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Linderholm, 114 P. 857, 84 Kan. 603, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 377 (kan 1911).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

As the result of a proceeding in lunacy in the probate court the appellant was adjudged to be insane. On appeal to the district court the same conclusion was reached, and as a result he was ordered sent to the state hospital. In both the probate court and the district court the finding was made by a jury of four,' one of whom was a physician (Laws 1901, ch. 353, § 58, Gen. Stat. 1909, § 8470). On appeal to this court it is urged that the right of trial by jury secured by the constitution (Bill of Rights, § 5) has been violated:

Although the hearing of a case of this kind is ordinarily designated as a trial, it is not so in the sense of the constitution. The proceeding is merely an inquest conducted primarily for the benefit of the person whose mental state is in question, and it bears no resemblance [604]*604to an action, either civil or criminal. As the court said-in the case of Chavannes v. Priestley, 80 Iowa, 316:

“It is not a case in which he is adjudged at fault, orín default, and for which there is a forfeiture of liberty or property, but only a method by which the public discharges its duty to a citizen. The misfortunes of citizens sometimes place them where, for their care and. preservation, restraints are necessary, and such restraints are even justified at the hands of private persons. They are not in such cases ‘deprived of liberty’ within the meaning of the constitution.” (p. 320.)

On appeal to the district court the nature of the proceeding was not changed. It was still an inquest of lunacy, the same as it had been in the probate court, and the jury provisions of the civil and criminal codes, were not applicable.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Smith v. Smith
48 So. 2d 546 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1950)
Estate of Holder v. Jochems
204 P.2d 777 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1949)
Richardson v. Warner
288 N.W. 39 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1939)
Linderholm v. State
69 P.2d 689 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1937)
Justus B. Linderholm v. The State of Kansas.
296 U.S. 572 (Supreme Court, 1935)
Hall ex rel. Hall v. Brown
284 P. 396 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1930)
Woodworth v. Maddox
223 P. 275 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1924)
Epp v. Hinton
170 P. 987 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1918)
White v. White
196 S.W. 508 (Texas Supreme Court, 1917)
White v. White
183 S.W. 369 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
State of Kansas v. Linderholm
149 P. 427 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1915)
Ponca Milling Co. v. Stevens
147 P. 815 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1915)
In re the Insanity of Johnson
139 P. 1161 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1914)
Ex Parte Singleton
161 S.W. 123 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1913)
State v. Linderholm
135 P. 564 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1913)
Ex Parte Dagley
1912 OK 796 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
In re Clark
121 P. 492 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 P. 857, 84 Kan. 603, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-linderholm-kan-1911.