Majority
Headnote
Lunatics—commitment of lunatic to state hospital as poor person — when claim against estate of decedent rejected — waiver — Insanity Law, § 85.The Binghamton State Hospital has presented a claim of $1,358.71 against the above named estate for the care of Edwin Cross, husband of testatrix, or an insane patient.
Susan Cross, testatrix, died February 10,1915, leaving an estate of about $514.21, being a deposit in the Oneida Savings Bank. This has increased by interest accumulated and probably amounts to about $550 at this time. The funeral expenses and expenses of administration amount to $269; admitted claims $119.50. The only disputed claim is that of Binghamton State Hospital. The attorney-general offers to concede priorty to any bill for physician’s or nurse’s services rendered during testatrix’s last illness, in addition to the $269 which would at any rate be preferred-, but otherwise claims for the state the preference conferred by section 86 of the Insanity Law.
It is conceded that testator’s husband was committed to Binghamton State Hospital as a poor person.. It was probably certified by the judge who granted this commitment under section 82 of the Insanity Law that said Edwin Cross and those liable for his maintenance had no property or means to pay for the same. At any rate it is conceded that at the time of commitment neither said Edwin Cross nor his wife had any property or means except the wife’s ability to work and that during the lifetime of testatrix no proceedings were taken "to charge her with any part of claimant’s
I think the claim for support, care and maintenance of Edwin Cross was waived, if indeed it could ever have been enforced. I think that it can be waived by the commission. Section 85 of the Insanity Law is pretty broad in its terms. Among other things, it provides that: ‘ ‘ The commission may, in its discretion, waive the whole or a portion of the claim of the state
“ The commission may appoint agents * * * to secure from relatives and friends who are liable therefor * * * reimbursement, in whole or in part, * * * The commission may fix the rate to be paid for the support of an inmate of a state hospital * * * by relatives liable for such support * *
I believe that the intent of the section, taken as a whole, was to give the commission' a discretion to waive in whole or in part the claim for support as against relatives who could possibly contribute but to whom such enforced contribution would be a great hardship and injustice.
No decision of any appellate court of this state covering the precise question raised by the facts of this case, under the present provisions of the Insanity Law, or under any precisely similar provisions of previous statutes, has been brought to my attention.
Matter of Wesley, 156 App. Div. 403 , was a claim against the estate of an incompetent who had no means when committed but. afterwards some funds were realized from the sale of some household effects. The case at bar would be somewhat similar if after Edwin Cross was committed as a poor person property had come to him, or if his wife.by some means other than by manual labor had come into possession of property. In that case she would at least have been liable for her husband’s care rendered after she became
I base my decision on the ground that the commission could and did waive its claim, if any it had, against testatrix, for the maintenánee of her husband at the hospital, and that encouraged by such waiver the testatrix, deprived of her husband’s support, worked out as a domestic and saved the money now constituting her estate. In my opinion this waiver could not be recalled after her decease.
The claim in dispute is, therefore, rejected.
Claim rejected.
Cases cited
- In re Wesley 156 App. Div. 403 p. 202