In Re Gordon

Boyles, J. We granted petitioner the writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of her detention in the Ionia State hospital. Ancillary writ of certiorari was directed to the probate court for Wayne county to certify to this court its records and proceedings leading to the detention. The records, in compliance with the writ, are before us. It appears that petitioner was committed to the Wayne county hospital at Eloise, Michigan, by the *225 probate court for Wayne county on August 14, 1936, as an insane person, and on or about June 11, 1938, was transferred to tbe Ionia State hospital under tbe provisions of Act No. 151, § 9b, Pub. Acts 1923, as added by Act No. 104, Pub. Acts 1937 (Stat. Ann. 1941 Cum. Supp. §14.809 [2]). At tbe time of tbe bearing on tbe petition for commitment by tbe probate court for Wayne county on August 14, 1936, petitioner was a patient in tbe Detroit receiving hospital and was not present at tbe bearing. Tbe petition was filed by a peace officer of Detroit and it is claimed that Emma Gordon, alias Mary McCoy, was then detained by force in tbe receiving hospital. Tbe only relative appearing for tbe alleged insane person w;as an 18-year-old son who was her only means of support. When asked by tbe court if be bad any objection to tbe commitment, be answered “Yes * * # it will break up our borne.” Tbe only proof taken at tbe bearing as to tbe alleged insanity consists of tbe testimony of one Mae Hollenbeck, a social .worker at tbe receiving hospital. On this point, tbe testimony is limited to tbe following question and answer: “Q. What do your records show relative to tbe facts on tbe petition for commitment and hospitalization of Emma Gordon alias Mary McCoy? “A. That she is in need of hospital treatment in a mental hospital.” Tbe statute (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 6888.[Stat. Ann. § 14.811]) requires: “Tbe court shall also institute an inquest, and take proofs, as to tbe alleged insanity, feeble-mindedness, epilepsy or mental disease of such person. ’ ’ *226 (The subsequent amendment to this statute contains the same requirement [Act No. 299, Pub. Acts 1941 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1942, §6888, Stat. Ann. 1941 Cum. Supp. §14.811)].) Obviously this testimony has no probative value. Conceding its admissibility, it entirely fails to meet the statutory requirement that the court shall institute an inqubst and take proofs as to the alleged insanity. At most, it is merely an opinion or conclusion. See In re Myrtle Davis, 277 Mich. 88; In re Ryan, 291 Mich. 673. The hearing was fatally defective, it did not comply with the statute, the commitment was unauthorized and void. The attorney general and the prosecuting attorney concede that .petitioner is entitled to release. An order may be entered to that effect. Chandler, C. J., and North, Starr, Butzel, Bushnell, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred. Wiest, J., did not sit.