Opinion
Opinion filed March 7, 1938.
1. PARENT AND CHILD.
The courts are without authority in an independent proceeding to make an order requiring a father to provide periodical payments for the support of his child unless the child has been adjudged neglected, delinquent, or dependent, or unless the father be of unsound mind. Code 1932, section 9652.
2. PARENT AND CHILD.
The ordinary method of enforcing father's liability for the support of his child is by suit against the father for reimbursement on behalf of the person who has furnished necessities to the child.
3. INFANTS.
A juvenile court is one of limited and special jurisdiction within which its powers are full.
4. INSANE PERSONS.
Under statute authorizing juvenile court to secure out of father's estate the support of a child found neglected, delinquent, or dependent, parents of unsound minds are not excepted, and juvenile court has authority to secure out of lunatic father's estate the support of child found neglected, delinquent, or dependent. Code 1932, section 10306.
5. INSANE PERSONS.
An insane person has the legal capacity to sue and be sued the same as a sane person.
6. INSANE PERSONS.
A decree based upon judgment pro confesso cannot be taken against a person of unsound mind. Code 1932, sections 10452, 10453.
7. INSANE PERSONS.
At common law and under statute, an insane person is liable for necessities. Code 1932, section 7195.
8. INSANE PERSONS.
An insane person is liable for necessities furnished members of his family whom he is under legal obligation to support.
9. INSANE PERSONS.
Any court with jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter can entertain a suit for necessities furnished to an insane person.
10. INSANE PERSONS.
Under statute authorizing juvenile court to secure out of father's estate the support of a child found neglected, delinquent, or dependent, a juvenile court can enter judgment against either a sane or an insane father for the support of a child found neglected, delinquent, or dependent. Code 1932, section 10306.
11. INSANE PERSONS.
The question as to the proper court to compel guardian of insane father to make payments for support of minor child would arise on guardian's refusal to recognize judgment of juvenile court directing such payments, necessitating proceedings in invitum though judgment of juvenile court would protect guardian making payments in compliance with such judgment. Code 1932, section 10306.
FROM DAVIDSON.Error to Circuit Court of Davidson County. — HON. A.B. NEIL, Judge.
Proceeding by the Juvenile Court at Nashville and others against Marcus Cartwright, by his guardian, the Broadway National Bank, to inquire into the ability of Marcus Cartwright, an insane person, to support a minor child. To review an order directing the payment of $20 per month for the support of the minor child, Marcus Cartwright and his guardian bring error. Affirmed.
JAY G. STEPHENSON, EDWIN E. CARLSON and JOE MORSE, JR., all of Nashville, for plaintiffs in error.
NEWMAN BRANDON, JR., of Nashville, for defendants in error.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court overruling a demurrer and affirming the judgment of the Juvenile Court at Nashville directing Marcus Cartwright and his guardian, the Broadway National Bank, to pay $20 per month for the support of Cartwright's infant child. The only question presented on this appeal is whether the Juvenile Court had jurisdiction to render the judgment or order entered by it.
Unless a child has been adjudged neglected, delinquent, or dependent, the courts of Tennessee are without authority, in an independent proceeding, to make an order requiring a father to provide periodical payments for the support and maintenance of his child. This is so unless the father be of unsound mind. See Code, section 9652. While the father is liable for the support of his child, the ordinary method of enforcing this liability is by suit against the father for reimbursement on behalf of the person who has furnished necessities to the child. Fuller v. Fuller, 169 Tenn. 586, 89 S.W.2d 762; Baker v. Baker, 169 Tenn. 589, 89 S.W.2d 763.
When, however, a child has been found neglected, delinquent, or dependent in the Juvenile Court, section 10306 of the Code contains this provision:
"In any case in which the court shall find a child neglected, dependent, or delinquent, it may in the same or subsequent proceeding, upon the parents of such child or either of them being duly summoned or voluntarily appearing, proceed to inquire into the ability of such parent or parents to support the child or contribute to its support, and if the court shall find such parent or parents able to support the child or contribute thereto, the court may enter such order or decree as shall be according to equity in the premises, and may enforce the same by execution or in any way in which a court of equity may enforce its orders and decrees, and no property of such parents, or either of them, shall be exempt from levy and sale under such execution or other process issued from said court."
It will be observed that the Juvenile Court may enforce an order of this nature against the father "by execution or in any way in which a court of equity may enforce its orders and decrees."
The defendant Marcus Cartwright was formally adjudged to be of unsound mind and a guardian appointed for his estate prior to this proceeding begun in the Juvenile Court.
There is no exception in section 10306 of the Code, above quoted, of parents of unsound mind from amenability to its provision. It is true that a Juvenile Court is one of limited and special jurisdiction. Within its jurisdiction, however, its powers are full. We do not think that the lunacy of a father can deprive the Juvenile Court of its statutory authority to secure out of the father's estate the support of a child found neglected, delinquent, or dependent.
An insane person has the legal capacity to sue and be sued the same as a sane person. Rankin v. Warner, 70 Tenn. (2 Lea), 302. Such is the general rule. See cases collected in a Note, 130 Am. St. Rep., 842. Decree based upon judgment pro confesso, however, cannot be taken against a person of unsound mind. Code, sections 10452, 10453. At common law and under our statute (Code, section 7195), an insane person is liable for necessities. McNairy County v. McCoin, 101 Tenn. 74, 76, 45 S.W. 1070, 41 L.R.A., 862. Such person is also liable for necessities furnished members of his family whom he is under legal obligation to support. 14 R.C.L., 578; 32 C.J., 740.
Apart from the Juvenile Court statute, any court with jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter can entertain a suit for necessities furnished to an insane person. The statute mentioned, as stated above, makes no distinction between an insane father and a sane father. We think the Juvenile Court can enter a judgment against either for the support of a neglected, dependent, or delinquent child.
The guardian makes the point that the chancery court and the county court are the only courts having jurisdiction of persons and estate of lunatics. In the case before us there is under review only a judgment against the lunatic and his guardian. Pending appeal naturally there has been no effort to enforce this judgment by execution or otherwise.
We think for the reasons stated the Juvenile Court had jurisdiction to render the judgment before us. If the guardian is willing to comply with this judgment, the judgment will protect it in making payments in observance thereof. If the guardian should decline to recognize the judgment and it becomes necessary to resort to procedure in invitum, the question of the proper court to enforce the judgment will then arise.
Affirmed.