It has been held that the probate courts (formerly courts of ordinary) of this state have jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for the person of a nonresident insane person if the nonresident is found within the limits of the county of the probate court's jurisdiction. Coker v. Gay, 154 Ga. 337 ( 114 S.E. 217) (1922); Grier v. McLendon, 7 Ga. 362 (1849); Shea v. Gehan, 70 Ga. App. 229 ( 28 S.E.2d 181) (1943). Our holding in this case does not affect such nonresidents, because they are granted no special venue rights under the state Constitution.

Confinement of an insane person in a state sanitarium for the insane is not punishment under the law, but is protection of the insane individual and of society. Shea v. Gehan, 70 Ga. App. 229, 230 ( 28 S.E.2d 181). Prior to the enactment of the 1952 act, juries in this State frequently were confronted with cases where a brutal homicide had been committed, but where much evidence was introduced tending to show that the person accused of the crime was insane at the time of its commission. Such juries had the difficult choice of acquitting the accused, and thus sending free into society an insane person with proved homicidal tendencies, or sentencing a person, unaccountable under the law for his crimes, to death or life imprisonment.

The adjudication of unsound mind refers to all classes of mental illness or other conditions under OCGA § 29-5-1(a) where the probate court determines that a person needs a guardian to handle his affairs and to manage his property. Shea v. Gehan, 70 Ga. App. 229, 230-232(1) ( 28 S.E.2d 181) (1943) (probate court has jurisdiction to determine that person needs a guardian because he or she is insane); Royal Indem. Co. v. Agnew, 66 Ga. App. 377, 379-380(1) ( 18 S.E.2d 57) (1941) (guardians are appointed for mentally incompetent, insane persons, non compos mentis, deaf and dumb, habitual drunkards, and imbeciles from age or other cause who cannot manage their estate). Only the probate court has jurisdiction to determine if a person is civilly incompetent and in need of a guardian of either their person or property or both.Shea v. Gehan, supra at 229; Meadors v. Walden, 28 Ga. App. 409 (1) ( 111 S.E. 227) (1922).

The adjudication of unsound mind refers to all classes of mental illness or other conditions under OCGA § 29-5-1(a) where the probate court determines that a person needs a guardian to handle his affairs and to manage his property. Shea v. Gehan, 70 Ga. App. 229, 230-232(1) ( 28 S.E.2d 181) (1943) (probate court has jurisdiction to determine that person needs a guardian because he or she is insane); Royal Indem. Co. v. Agnew, 66 Ga. App. 377, 379-380(1) ( 18 S.E.2d 57) (1941) (guardians are appointed for mentally incompetent, insane persons, non compos mentis, deaf and dumb, habitual drunkards, and imbeciles from age or other cause who cannot manage their estate). Only the probate court has jurisdiction to determine if a person is civilly incompetent and in need of a guardian of either their person or property or both.Shea v. Gehan, supra at 229; Meadors v. Walden, 28 Ga. App. 409 (1) ( 111 S.E. 227) (1922).

Such notice is necessary to the validity of an adjudication in a case where there are such relatives who can be served. Morton v. Sims, 64 Ga. 298 (1); Yeomans v. Williams, 117 Ga. 800, 803 ( 45 S.E. 73); Singer v. Middleton, 135 Ga. 825 (1) ( 70 S.E. 662); Milam v. Terrell, 214 Ga. 199, 202 ( 104 S.E.2d 219); Anderson v. Smith, 76 Ga. App. 171 ( 45 S.E.2d 282); White v. Williamson, 44 Ga. App. 428 (1) ( 161 S.E. 654). The cases cited to the effect that one who has been adjudged insane is not a proper party are not applicable because in those cases there had been a legal adjudication of insanity, whereas here there has been no legal adjudication if the facts alleged in the petition to set aside are true. On the question of venue see Shea v. Gehan, 70 Ga. App. 229 ( 28 S.E.2d 181). The court did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition to set aside.

1. One of such issues in the petition is to the effect that Mrs. M. C. Anderson at the time of the commitment was a resident of Irwin County and not of Wilcox County where the lunacy proceedings were instituted and adjudicated. In Shea v. Gehan, 70 Ga. App. 229, 232 ( 28 S.E.2d 181), the court laid down this principle: "Neither the Code, § 49-601, nor the act of 1929, pp. 248 et seq., as amended by the act of 1937, pp. 284 et seq., and codified as §§ 49-801 et seq., limits the power of the ordinary over insane person who are citizens of Georgia and resident in the county, but such statutes are broad enough to embrace, in view of the law in general, the power and jurisdiction of such courts over insane persons who are present in their respective counties." See also Grier v. McLendon, 7 Ga. 362; Coker v. Gay, 154 Ga. 337 ( 114 S.E. 217).