Page images
PDF
EPUB

insuring proper attention to the state of the lunatic (q). An order was made that a particular physician be requested to visit the lunatic at her residence, and to direct any medical attendance which he might deem necessary to be rendered until further order; and that the physician should report to the Chancellor the state in which he might find the lunatic, as to health and otherwise, and also what he might think should be done for her comfort and health, having regard to her income (r).

The misconduct of the committee of the person of a lunatic, with respect either to the treatment of his person, or the application of the sums of money allowed for his maintenance, or other purposes, may be represented to the Lord Chancellor, by petition, supported by affidavits, and be made the subject of judicial investigation and inquiry.

Thus, where the committees of the person of a lunatic had not substantially complied with an order, directing a particular sum to be advanced for his benefit, a reference was directed to the Master, to inquire as to its application. In this case, a sum of money had been ordered to be paid to the committees of the person of a lunatic for a specific purpose, and the committee of the estate presented a petition, alleging that such sum had not been applied according

(4) A bill is now before Parliament, by which, after reciting that it is expedient, for the better care and treatment of idiots, lunatics, and persons of unsound mind, found such by inquisition, that proper and fit persons should be appointed to superintend, and from time to time report to the Lord Chancellor, or other the person or persons intrusted by the King's sign manual with the care and commitment of the custody of the persons and estates of lunatics, the care and treatment and state of every such idiot, lunatic, and person of unsound mind; it is proposed to be enacted, "that it shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor, or other the person or persons

intrusted as aforesaid, by an instrument under his hand and seal, or hands and seals, to appoint three persons to be visitors during pleasure, for superintending, inspecting, and reporting upon, under the order and direction of the Lord Chancellor, or other the person or persons intrusted as aforesaid, the care and treatment of all persons found idiot, lunatic, or of unsound mind, by inquisition, and to make all such orders and regulations as to the duties of such visitors, as the Lord Chancellor, or other the person or persons intrusted as aforesaid, shall from time to time think fit."

(r) In re Pearson, 19 Nov. 1828.

to the order; whereupon it was referred to the Master to inquire whether the order allowing a sum to the committees of the person as an outfit had been substantially complied with; and, in case the Master should be of opinion that such order had not been substantially complied with, then he was to direct the application of such part of the sum as he should be of opinion had not been properly expended, in such manner as he should think proper, in accordance with the former order (s).

SECTION III.

Of the Committee of the Estate.

THE heir-at-law is the most favoured in the appointment to the committeeship of the estate, on the supposition that he has the greatest interest in taking care of the property, and preserving it in good condition (t).

A relation of the non compos, or one interested in the estate, will, cæteris paribus, be preferred to a stranger (u).

A stranger may, however, be appointed committee; and, in one case, a neighbouring gentleman, who was considered likely to manage the property to advantage, was chosen (v).

The Court refused to appoint a Master in Chancery to the office of committee of a lunatic's estate, upon the ground that he would have to pass his accounts before some of the other Masters; and that, if once allowed, might lead to such results as would be subversive of the due administration of justice; for, if one Master might be appointed a committee or receiver, every other Master might be a committee or receiver of some other lunatic's estate, and they would have to pass each other's accounts (w).

(s) In re Jodrell, 13 Aug. 1829. (t) 1 Bl. Com. 304.

(v) Neal's case, 2 P.Wms. 544.
(w) Ex parte Fletcher, 6 Ves.

(u) Ex parte Le Heup, 18 Ves. 427.

And it seems that a solicitor, who prosecutes a commission of lunacy, ought not to be appointed committee of the lunatic's estate (x).

The committee of the person of a lunatic is in many cases appointed committee of the estate also.

SECTION IV.

Of the Appointment of a Receiver of the Lunatic's Estate.

IN case it be not thought expedient to intrust the committee with the receipt of the rents and profits of the estate, a receiver may be appointed for that purpose.

On the petition of the brother of a lunatic, praying to be named committee of his person, and that a receiver might be appointed of the estate, the heir-at-law (who, with such brother, was the only next of kin) declining to be committee of the estate, on account of his being unable, from his circumstances, to give the security required-Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, after declaring it to be an unusual thing, appointed the petitioner committee of the person and estate, with a restriction not to receive any sums of money, part of the lunatic's estate; and referred it to the Master to appoint a receiver, who was to account and pay the balance to the Accountant-General, after paying what should be allowed to the petitioner for the maintenance of the lunatic (y).

In a case, where it appeared that no one could be procured to act as committee, and that the property of the lunatic consisted only of real estate and funds vested in trustees-Lord Chancellor Eldon made an order, that a receiver should be appointed, with a salary; who should be considered as committee, and give such security as (x) Ex parte Pincke, 2 Mer. 452, post, p. 146.

(y) Ex parte Billinghurst, 1 Ambl,

103.

L

should be satisfactory to the Attorney-General, as is done by a committee (2).

The receiver is not always required to give the same security as a committee. Thus, it was referred to the Master to appoint a fit and proper person to be receiver of the lunatic's estate, and to allow him a reasonable salary for his care and pains therein; such receiver, so to be appointed, first giving security to be allowed by the Master duly to account for what he should so receive, and to pay the same as the Lord Chancellor should direct (a).

Where the person who had been appointed committee of the person and estate of the lunatic had refused to accept a grant of the estate without compensation, and no person could be found who would act gratuitously, a receiver of the estate was appointed (b).

But the Court refused to appoint a receiver, on the application of the heir-at-law of the lunatic, who had been appointed one of the committees of the estate, and neglected to perfect his security; and it seems that the expense of a receiver is not to be incurred, in order that a person, who cannot give security, may be appointed committee (c).

A receiver will sometimes be appointed, where the committee resides at a distance from the estate (d).

A receiver may be appointed where the committee is infirm, although not resident at a distance; or where the management of the estate is attended with considerable trouble (e).

Where the committee of the person of a lunatic petitioned that he might be at liberty to propose before the Master the solicitor to the commission as receiver of the lunatic's estate, stating that nobody else was willing to accept the office of receiver-The Court refused to make the order, as it was extremely jealous of appointing any person to be receiver, whose duty it was to call the receiver to an account; and said that the same objection applied to appoint

(z) Ex parte Warren, 10 Ves. 621. (a) In re Squire, 5 Aug. 1828. (b) Ex parte Radcliffe, 1 Jac. & Walk. 639.

(c) In re Frank, 2 Russ. 450. (d) In re Seaman, Aug. 1808. (e) In re Birch, Ang. 1808.

ing a person who acts as solicitor under the commission to be receiver of the estate, as to the appointment of a Master in Chancery to be committee or receiver (ƒ).

Contrary to the general rule, a receiver may be appointed of the estate of a lunatic on petition only, without any bill having been filed, as is requisite in other cases, where the Court of Chancery appoints a receiver.

With respect to the powers of a receiver when appointed, it appears that he has very little discretion allowed him (g), for he must apply to the Court for liberty to bring or defend actions (h), or let the estate (i); and, in most cases, even to be allowed to lay out money in repairs (k). And it seems, that he cannot, without an order of the Court, distrain upon a tenant (1), unless the rent be in arrear, for any period short of a year (m).

A receiver has generally a plain course to follow: he has only to pay into Court the money which he receives yearly, and to expend nothing extraordinary without an order of Court (n).

General orders are sometimes made with respect to the course to be pursued by the receiver of a lunatic's estate. The receiver of a lunatic's estate was ordered to pay the balance of rents and profits, and any future balances to be from time to time found due from him, on passing his future accounts, until further order, into the Bank of England, in the name and with the privity of the Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery; and the sums so paid in, and all future balances to be thereafter paid in, were ordered to be

(f) Ex parte Pincke, 2 Mer. 452. Ves. 563. See Tempest v. Ord, 2 See ante, p. 145. Mer. 55.

(g) 6 Ves. 802; 15 Ves. 26. (h) Wynn v. Lord Newborough, 3 Br. C. C. 88; S. C. 1 Ves. jun. 164; Anon. 6 Ves. 287; Angel v. Smith, 9 Ves. 335; 1 Jac. & Walk. 178.

(i) Morris v. Elme, 1 Ves. jun. 139; Id. 165.

(1) Pitt v. Snowden, 3 Atk. 750; Raincock v. Simpson, cited in 1 Dick. 120; Hughes v. Hughes, 3 Bro. C. C. 87; S. C. 1 Ves. jun. 161.

(m) Brandon v. Brandon, 5 Madd. 473; Dancer v. Hastings, 4 Bing. 2.

(n) Fletcher v. Dodd, 1 Ves. jun. 85; Waters v. Taylor, 15 Ves. 25; and post, sect. 9.

(k) Blunt v. Clitherow, 6 Ves. 799; Attorney-General v. Vigor, 11

« PreviousContinue »