
    Julia A. Hurlehy, App’lt, v. Godfrey R. Martine et al., Resp’ts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
    
    
      Filed May 26, 1890.)
    
    Limitation—False impbisonment—Insane pebsons.
    A complaint alleged that the defendants, who were physicians, signed the certificate provided for by § 1, title 1, chap. 446, Laws of 1874, setting forth the insanity of plaintiff; that they did this falsely and maliciously and that the inquisition was false and fraudulent; that on the certificate plaintiff was confined for some time in the Hudson River Hospital. Meld, that the gist of such an action was false imprisonment and that the action was barred in two years.
    Appeal from a judgment of nonsuit.
    On or about the 27th and 28th days of October, 1882, at the village of Glens Falls, Warren county, N. Y., an inquisition as to the plaintiff’s lunacy was held, and on that inquisition the defendants, as practicing physicians, made certificates as to the condition of plaintiff’s temperature and pulse, and stating other facts as to the condition of her mind, upon which a commitment was made to the Hudson River State Hospital. The plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on the days before mentioned, the defendants maliciously and falsely, and in aid of certain persons mentioned in the complaint, who had slandered the plaintiff, pretended to hold an inquest as to the plaintiff’s lunacy, and in their certificates thereupon made falsely stated the condition of plaintiff’s temperature and pulse and other facts, without proof of their existence; that the inquisition was a farce, and that in consequence of the false and unlawful certificates made by the defendants, the plaintiff was committed to and confined in the Hudson River State Hospital for a period of two years and five months, and was deprived of her liberty and the pursuit at her lawful occupation, and lost by reason of such confinement large sums of money which she might have earned, and suffered great distress of mind on account of such confinement; all to her damage of $20,000.
    The defendants, answering plaintiff’s complaint, after denying and admitting certain portions of the same, plead the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the action, alleging that more than two years had elapsed since the alleged acts, and since the termination of the imprisonment and confinement complained of before the commencement of the action.
    
      W. F. Hickey, for app’lt; L. M, Brown, for resp’ts.
   Learned, P. J.

There is much in the complaint which seems to have no proper connection with the alleged cause of action. And there are allegations which are quite peculiar; as that defendants as practicing physicians pretended to hold an inquest as to plaintiff’s lunacy; and that not a witness was sworn or any testimony taken on the inquisition. We do not understand how such an inquest can be held.

But we suppose that the complaint means that the defendants signed the certificates provided for in § 1, title 1, chap. 446, Laws of 1874. And the complaint alleges in an obscure manner that they did this falsely and maliciously and that the “ inquisition was false and fraudulent.” It further alleges iir substance that on these certificates the plaintiff was confined in the Hudson Eiver Hospital about October 27, 1882, and there remained two years and five months.

The answer denying the allegations generally, pleads also the statute of limitations.

On the trial it was admitted that the certificates were granted October 28, 1882, and the action commenced October 13, 1888, and that plaintiff was committed to the asylum and remained there about two years and five months and was discharged April 1, 1885. The court held that the plea of the statute of limitations was good; that the gist of the action was false imprisonment; and that, as to the statute of limitations, the action came under § 384, Code Oiv. Pro., and granted a nonsuit. That is, the court held that the two years limitation applied. The only question is whether this holding was correct.

The question then is whether the maliciously making of false certificates authorized by the act aforesaid, under which with the approval of the judge a person is confined in an asylum, renders the persons making the certificates liable to an action for false imprisonment, in case such certificates are false, fraudulent and malicious.

It must be observed in the outset that the question whether any cause of action is alleged in the complaint, is not before us. There was no demurrer. The case comes up as on a trial of fact; and the only matter decided was that the action was one for false imprisonment, and was therefore barred by the statute. We must assume, therefore, that enough was alleged in the complaint, or could have been proved on the trial, to sustain a recovery, had it not been for the statute of limitations.

How, if we look at the statute of 1874, above cited, we shall see that "all which the physicians have to do is to give a certificate setting forth the insanity. The statute does not say that these certificates authorize or direct the confinement of the person. Section 1, title 1, only forbids the confinement without such certificates. These certificates are not directed to the person in charge of any insane asylum. They do not purport to specify where, or by whom, the person is to be confined.

Section 5 authorizes the county superintendent of the poor to send a lunatic to a state lunatic asylum. Section 6 speaks of t^e neglect of a committee or guardian to confine a lunatic, and authorizes an application to a judge in certain cases for a warrant. But nowhere are these certificates mentioned in § 1 made the authority under which the keeper of an asylum is to_confine a lunatic.

Of course the defendants in this case did not themselves imprison the plaintiff. But the plaintiff does not aver that she has suffered any actual damages except by the false imprisonment. It is not alleged that the certificates were a libel on her-, and have thus done her injury. And, indeed, if they were libelous, the same limitation would apply as to an action for false imprisonment. Code Civil Procedure, § 384. But the gist of the action, that is, the injury suffered, was the false imprisonment. The certificates did the plaintiff no harm, except either as libels or as causing her unlawful imprisonment.

The case is in some degree analogous to an action against an attorney who has instituted proceedings of some kind which have resulted in the imprisonment (alleged to be unlawful) of the plaintiff. And although the certificates of the physicians do not direct the superintendent of an asylum to imprison the lunatic, still if the lunatic is thereby wronged and if the physicians are liable, it would seem that the lunatic was wronged only by the imprisonment, and that it would only be for such imprisonment that the physicians could be liable. If the alleged lunatic had never b.een confined, what damages could have been recovered ?

It might be urged that the action was to recover damages for a personal injury from negligence. Code Civ. Pro., § 383. Even if that view were correct (and we need not say that a similar case might not come under that section), still the action would be barred by the limitation there prescribed.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Landon and Mayham, JJ., concur.  