{ "id": 5114344, "name": "Ancient Order of United Workmen v. Holdom, Conservator of the Estate of Paul Holtz", "name_abbreviation": "Ancient Order of United Workmen v. Holdom", "decision_date": "1894-02-01", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "200", "last_page": "203", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "51 Ill. App. 200" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "120 Mass. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "22 N. E. Rep. 1888", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "121 Ill. 660", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5387117 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/121/0660-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 Mass. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 738886 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/120/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 Ill. 660", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5387117 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/121/0660-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 351, "char_count": 5846, "ocr_confidence": 0.496, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.250236564954259e-08, "percentile": 0.4777958097170916 }, "sha256": "ecc08915ecc832b9335ee449e9dfbdc24a91e2aa6cae473e2fba5a87328c672b", "simhash": "1:72ef406986ce5308", "word_count": 1012 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:15.137575+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Ancient Order of United Workmen v. Holdom, Conservator of the Estate of Paul Holtz." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nOne Carl Holtz obtained from appellant a policy of life insurance, the beneficiary, named, being his son Paul. Paul Holtz, while insane, killed his father, whereupon, a conservator of the insane son having been appointed, he brought suit to recover the insurance said to be due upon the policy issued upon the fife of Carl Holtz.\nIs the insane beneficiary of a life insurance policy entitled, upon his killing the insured, to the insurance money, is the question here presented.\nIf the distinction between the civil and criminal liability of the insane is kept in mind, there will be no difficulty in answering this question.\nA lunatic is not criminally responsible for his acts, because criminal intent is the essence of crime, and criminal intent is wanting in the insane; but intent is not a necessary ingredient of civil liability.\nThe multitude of cases in which judgment is obtained for injuries resulting from negligence are not based upon an intent to do harm; on the contrary there is in them not only an entire absence of wrongful intent, but most often a desire to avoid injury to any one. Intent not being necessary, a lunatic is civilly responsible for his' torts, and an action may be maintained against him therefor. Chitty\u2019s Pleadings, Vol. 1, p. 97; Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, Sec. 57.\nIt would be manifestly against public policy to absolve lunatics from the civil consequences of their acts; the temptation to simulate insanity for purposes of mischief, revenge or gain would, with persons of a low order, be very strong.'\nOn account of public policy, as well, as principle, an insane person may be proceeded against in the civil courts for the consequences of his torts. McIntyre v. Sholty, 121 Ill. 660; Cooley on Torts, p. 97; Greenhood on Public Policy, Pt. 1, Rule II; Hatch, Adm\u2019r, v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 120 Mass. 550; Amicable Society v. Bolland, 4 Bligh N. S. 194.\nNo one can tell how long an insane person may remain so; so soon as his reason is restored he is entitled to his liberty, and also, to his estate, enriched by whatever may' have been added to it by his insane acts.\nIf Paul Holtz, while insane, had beaten a neighbor or his father, a civil recovery might have been had against him for the damage he had thus occasioned.\nHe can not be enriched by reason of torts by him committed while insane.\nThis is no time for removing any of the restraints upon passion which exist, or doing aught that may favor the thought that gain may come from the taking of human life.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause having been tried by the court below without a jury, final judgment for the appellant, defendant below, will be entered here.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman" } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant\u2019s Brief, James McCartney, Attorney.", "Case, Hogan & Case, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Ancient Order of United Workmen v. Holdom, Conservator of the Estate of Paul Holtz.\n1. Lunatics\u2014Criminal Responsibility.\u2014A lunatic is not criminally responsible for his acts, because criminal intent is the essence of crime, and criminal intent is wanting in the insane.\n2. Lunatics\u2014Civil Responsibility.\u2014Intent is not a necessary ingredient of civil liability, and so a lunatic is civilly responsible for his torts, and an action may be maintained against him therefor.\n3. Lunatics\u2014Responsibility\u2014Public Policy.\u2014It would be manifestly against public policy to absolve lunatics from the civil consequences of their acts; the temptation to simulate insanity for purposes of mischief, revenge or gain, would, with persons of a low order, be very strong.\n4. Torts\u2014 Committed by a Lunatic.\u2014A person can not be enriched by reason of torts by him committed while insane.\nMemorandum.\u2014Action on an insurance policy. In the Circuit Court of Cook County; the- Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding. Declaration on policy; pleas, the general issue and a special plea, alleging that the appellee is the son and beneficiary of the insured, Carl Holtz, and that on December 15, 1800, the appellee killed and murdered the insured, by rea. son of which he forfeited and lost all rights as a beneficiary under the beneficiary certificate. Replication to special plea, charging that said Paul Holtz, the son and beneficiary of Carl Holtz, deceased, did not murder the said Carl Holtz on the 15th day of December, A. D. 1890, but that the said Paul Holtz did kill the said Carl Holtz on that day, while he, the said Paul Holtz, was insane. General demurrer filed by appellant to replication. Demurrer overruled. Appellant elects to stand by its demurrer. Cause submitted to court on statement of facts, and finding against appellant for $2,000 and costs of suit. Heard in this court at the October term, 1893.\nReversed and final judgment entered for appellant.\nOpinion filed February 1, 1894.\nThe statement of the facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nAppellant\u2019s Brief, James McCartney, Attorney.\nIn \u00a3he text books it is laid down as contrary to public policy to permit a plea of insanity to be interposed as a defense to an action for damages done by the insane person to the property of an innocent party. Shearman & Bedfiekl on Megligence, Sec. 57.\nIn Chitty\u2019s Pleadings, Vol. 1, *p. 76, it is said, \u201cAlthough a lunatic is not punishable, criminally, he is liable to a civil action for any tort he may commit.\u201d\nThe reasons for the rule are, public policy, and the danger that if this defense should be allowed, it would present a strong temptation to persons to simulate insanity for purposes of mischief and revenge. Cooley on Torts, p. 97 et seq.; McIntyre v. Sholty, 121 Ill. 660; Greenhood on Public Policy, Pt. 1, Rule 11; Riggs v. Palmer, 22 N. E. Rep. 1888; Porter on Insurance, *129, 131 et seq., Hatch, Adm\u2019r, v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 120 Mass. 520; Amicable Soc. v. Bolland, 4 Bligh N. S. 194; Prince, etc., Insurance Co. v. Palmer, 25 Beav. 605.\nCase, Hogan & Case, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0200-01", "first_page_order": 196, "last_page_order": 199 }