Central Kentucky Asylum For Insane v. Drane, &c. porting others naturally dependent on them. The court holding the inquest shall require the jury to return a finding on this subject, and the verdict shall be binding upon the superintendent." This section, it is insisted, was not intended as a definition of who were paupers, or to limit or enlarge the exemption laws when applied to pauper lunatics where a recovery is sought for their board under section 257. The case of German National Bank v. Engeln's Committee, 14 Bush, 70S, is relied on in support of this contention. The statute there construed provided that, if the estate of a lunatic was not sufficient to pay his debts, "the same not subject to exemption may, by a circuit or chancery court, be ordered to be sold and proceeds distributed and estate settled, as prescribed by law for the settlement of the estates of insolvent decedents." It was sought in that case to hold the claims of the lunatic and his family for support and maintenance to be paramount to the claims of reditors, the practice of the English chancellors being relied upon in support of the contention. It was held that the statute was a plain one, explicitly directing the mode of applying the assets of the lunatic, and left no discretion with the chancellor. We do not think that case at all analogous to the case at bar. The two sections (256 and 257), are in pari materia. They are parts of the same statute, in reference to the same subject, and are to be read together. If the lunatic is married, and unable to pay board besides providing for others naturally dependent, he "shall be held to be a pauper;" that is to say, that, though the condition of his estate is known, and known to be in condition to pay his board without supporting his family, he shall nevertheless be admitted to the asylum as a pauper. But it is contended that, though his estate is exempted for the purpose of securing his admissiou, notwithstanding the fact that its suffi Central Kentucky Asylum For Insane v. Drane, &c. ciency to support him is known, it can, immediately after his admission, be subjected to the payment of his board, together with the costs of the necessary litigation. Such a construction seems to us to be unwarranted. If the lunatic is to be held a pauper so as to be admitted, he is to be held a pauper so as to remain. The evident policy of the law is to provide at public expense for such lunatics as are unable to pay for their own keeping, and who have no relatives who are able and bound to support them. In the bestowal of its bounty the Commonwealth may properly discriminate between a lunatic who has a wife and family dependent upon him for support and one who has no such claims upon his estate. A similar distinction is recognized between sane persons similarly situated. Reading the two sections together, we think that section 257, in providing for a case where the patient has or shall acquire estate which can be subjected to debt, must be read with section 256, which provides that he shall be regarded as a pauper if he is unable to pay the board besides providing for others naturally de pendent, and therefore means that in such case he has no estate which can be subjected to debt. Counsel for appellant insists that the case should have been referred to the commissioner, to ascertain the nature and value of the estate of the lunatic, the extent of his indebtedness, and what property is necessary to be sold to satisfy his debts, as in the case of a decedent, under section 2150, Kentucky Statutes. The motion to refer to the commissioner, which was overruled by the trial court, is not a part of the record, and we are not informed as to the ground upon which such reference was sought. There seems to be no allegation of any debts existing against the lunatic's estate, or that the estate is insolvent. The sole question before the court, as we have seen, was the con Schroer v. Central Kentucky Asylum for the Insane. struction of sections 256 and 257. We do not mean to de cide that relief may not be had by the asylum authorities in the event of a change in the condition of the estate by the termination of the life estate of the lunatic's mother or otherwise. But upon the facts presented in this record we are of opinion the trial court did not err in adjudging the net income of the lunatic's estate, in connection with the income from the wife's estate, to be not more than adequate for the support of the lunatic's wife and child. The judgment is therefore affirmed. Petition for rehearing by appellant overruled; whole court sitting. CASE 41-ACTION BY CENTRAL KENTUCKY ASYLUM TO SUBJECT THE Schroer v. Central Kentucky Asylum for the Insane. APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT APPEALS. REVERSED. INSANE PERSONS-CONFINEMENT IN ASYLUMS-PAUPER LUNATIC-CON- Held: 1. The finding of a jury that a lunatic is a pauper, so as to entitle him to be admitted to a State asylum without payment in advance, as provided by Kentucky Statutes, section 256, is not such an adjudication between the lunatic and the State as to preclude further inquiry as to the ability of the lu natic to pay; express provision being made by Id., section 257, Schroer v. Central Kentucky Asylum for the Insane. for the recovery of the patient's board where he has, or subsequently acquires, estate. 2. The Legislature has no power to fix one rate for pay patients who are admitted into a State asylum as such, and to fix another rate, one-third greater, for patients who are admitted as paupers, but subsequently become able to pay, though the latter pay only at the end of a suit, the discrimination being an arbitrary one, without any proper or reasonable relation to the object sought to be accomplished; and therefore Kentucky Statute, section 257, to the extent that it provides for such increase of rate as to patients who acquire estate after being admitted as paupers, is void as fixing an arbitrary penalty, and as violating Const., section 59, subsec, 6, which forbids special legislation to affect the estate of persons under disabilities. 3. Kentucky Statutes, section 2515, providing that an action upon a liability created by statute when no other time is fixed by the statute creating the liability shall be commenced within five years next after the cause of action accrued, applies to an action by asylum commissioners, under Id., section 257, to subject the estate of a patient who has been admitted as a pauper, but has subsequently acquired estate which may be subjected. 4. As that statute authorizes the commissioners to sue "when reliably informed of the fact" that a pauper patient has acquired estate which may be subjected, a mistake of the commissioners as to the title to property inherited by a patient from his mother did not prevent the statute of limitations from running,. as the commissioners must be deemed to have been reliably informed of the lunatic's title to the property from the time when the title was of record. 5. As the procceding under that statute is a proceeding in rem to subject the cstate of the lunatic, and not the individual items which go to make up that estate, the cause of action accrues whenever the patient acquires any estate which may be subjected under the statute, and is barred after the lapse of five years from that time, though the particular estate sought to be subjected may have been acquired within five years. 6. It is proper, in cases where it may be done without undue delay, to provide for the payment of such claims out of the income of the estate. GEORGE L. EVERBACH & A. L. DEMBITZ, FOR APPELLANT. HOLT & ALEXANDER AND A. J. CARROLL, FOR APPELLEE. (No briefs in the record.) Vol. 113-19 Schroer v. Central Kentucky Asylum for the Insane. OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE DURELLE-REVERSING. In March, 1889, Joseph Schroer was committed to the Central Kentucky Asylum as a pauper patient, and has remained there since that date without any payment being made for his board and care. In January, 1890, his mother died intestate, leaving a lot in Louisville, valued at from $3,000 to $4,000, in which appellant inherited a one-third interest subject to an estate by the curtesy in J. B. Schroer, his father. J. B. Schroer died in September, 1897, leaving an estate of some $8,000 to $10,000, which he devised equally to his three children. The will was probated in October, 1897, and in April, 1900, the asylum brought this action, under section 257 of the Kentucky Statutes, to subject this after-acquired property of Joseph Schroer to the payment of his board for 11 years. The defenses presented by the committee of the lunatic are: First.. That by the judgment committing him he was adjudged a pauper; that that judg ment is in full force, and the asylum and the State are bound thereby, and can not collect board from his estate. Second. That, if his estate is liable, it is at the rate of $150 per year, and not at the rate of $200, as claimed in the petition. Third. That all claim for the years prior to 1895 is barred by the statute of limitations. The finding of the jury before whom the inquest was tried was that the lunatic owned no estate of any kind. Section 2158, Kentucky Statutes, requires the jury to find what estate, and the value thereof, the lunatic owns in possession, reversion, or remainder; whether his parents are alive, and whether they have estate sufficient to support the person under trial. By section 2161 the judge who presides at the inquest is required to endeavor to ascertain and draw up a brief history of the patient's case, which is sent to the asylum to which the lunatic is committed. The superintendent |