delivered up by the Clerk of the Custodies to be vacated and cancelled (a).

And in another case, on the petition of a husband and wife (the committees of the estate of a lunatic), the latter being the sole executrix named in the lunatic's will, and having proved the same, it was ordered that the AccountantGeneral should transfer into the name of the executrix, the stocks standing in his name on the credit in the matter, and pay to the executrix the dividends to accrue on such stock until such transfers, to be respectively applied by the executrix according to the lunatic's will (b).

On the petition of the committee of the estate of a deceased lunatic, being also the residuary legatee and sole executor named in his will, the committee of his person, who had been allowed by the lunatic to retain certain diamonds and jewels in her possession, was ordered to deliver up the same to the committee of his estate, without prejudice to any question as to the rights of any party to the same (c).

No order in lunacy can be made upon a petition preferred after the death of the non compos by his next of kin, to obtain a distribution of his personal property; but administration must be granted to some person entitled under the statutes (d), against whom, as well as the committee, a bill in equity may be filed to compel distribution.

The next of kin of a lunatic deceased preferred a petition to Lord Bathurst, for a distribution of the personal property, consisting of Bank Annuities, standing in the name of the Accountant-General in the matter of the lunacy; whereupon his Lordship directed the Master to inquire who were the heirs-at-law and next of kin of the lunatic. The Master having made his report, application was made to Lord Thurlow for the funds to be transferred; but his Lordship was of opinion that it was necessary for a bill to be filed to authorize the Court to take an account of the lunatic's debts, and to administer his effects. A bill was accordingly filed, when the Chancellor held that the report in the

(a) In re Perry, 8 Nov. 1828. See forms of petitions and orders in the Appendix.

(b) In re Hahn, 4 Aug. 1829.

(c) In re Jodrell, 17 March, 1832. (d) 21 Hen. 8, c. 5; 22 & 23 Car 2, c. 10.

lunacy was not a sufficient authority on which to ground a decree, as the Great Seal in respect of lunacy acts as a commissioner under a signet; and, therefore, he ordered the Master to inquire who were the heirs-at-law and next of kin of the lunatic, and to advertize in the Gazette and other papers for them to come in and prove their affinity by a time fixed, or to be excluded, and to make his report in the cause (d). So, also, where it was moved on behalf of the committee of a lunatic, that it might be referred to the Master to ascertain who were the next of kin of a lunatic, in order that a sum of money, his property, remaining in the hands of the committee, might be distributed according to the statute-The Lord Chancellor of Ireland refused the reference to the Master, and said, there must be a bill filed by one of the next of kin of the lunatic against the committee, for an account of the property, and then a reference would be made to the Master to ascertain who were the persons entitled to such sum (e).

Upon a bill being filed by the next of kin of a lunatic, for a distribution of his personal property, funds in the hands of the Accountant-General may be transferred to the credit of the cause, on the petition of the executor or administrator of the lunatic (ƒ).

It was formerly held, that, where the Chancellor had allowed the whole income of the lunatic for his maintenance, after his death his committee was not liable to account, unless he appeared to have acted fraudulently.

A bill was filed by the administrator of a lunatic against the administrator of the committee of the lunatic's estate, for an account of the personal estate, and of the rents and profits of the real estate of the lunatic received by such committee. To this was pleaded the several orders in the lunacy, whereby the custody of the lunatic was committed, and particularly an order that 2001. per annum should be applied out of the lunatic's estate towards payment of incumbrances affecting it, and the residue be allowed towards the maintenance of the lunatic, and the (d) Wigg v. Tiler, 2 Dick. 552. (e) Ex parte Gilbert, 1 Ball & Bea. 297.

(f) In re Machen, April, 1808; 1 Coll. on Lun. 321.

management of his estate. Lord Chancellor King observed that there was no fraud in obtaining the order; it was referred to the Master; pursuant to which a report was made. Where such order had been made for the allowance of the profits of the estate of the lunatic, and so often renewed, it was reasonable to suppose the committee to have been induced to take the less care of the accounts; and that it would be extremely hard, unless some great fraud appeared, to oblige such committee, and much more his representatives, to account or refund. A decree, and much more an interlocutory order, if gained by collusion, might be set aside on petition, and a fortiori by bill; but in this case there was no collusion. The plea was allowed to stand for an answer, without liberty to except. The matters in difference being afterwards compromised, the bill was dismissed without costs (g).

The authority of the case last cited has been lately questioned by Lord Chancellor Brougham, in a case of a similar nature which has been heard before him, and from whose decision there is an appeal now pending before the Privy Council. As the principle involved in it is of considerable importance to persons acting as committees of the estates of lunatics, or for other persons under disabilities, it may be proper to detail the facts of the case at greater length than in other instances has been thought necessary, or is consistent with the general plan of this work.

In the case to which allusion has just been made, the lunatic was the proprietor of large estates situate in various parts of England, and in the West Indies, producing a clear income of about 22,000l. a-year. In the year 1823, and shortly after the date of the grant of the custody of the person and estate of the lunatic to his uncles, it was thought fit that the lunatic should reside at his family seat in Dorsetshire, and that a suitable establishment should there be kept up for him; for the maintenance of which, a sum of 4,9851. a-year was directed to be made to the committees, without any direction to them to account for the items of expenditure. After the death of the lunatic, an order was made directing an account against the committees of all sums ex

(g) Sheldon v. Fortescue Aland, 3 P. Wms. 104, 111, n. (b). See ante, p. 131.

pended by them in maintaining the lunatic and supporting his establishment, the effect of which was to charge the committees with every sum ordered to be allowed to them, which they might be unable to shew was actually expended by them for the above purposes.

The commission of lunacy in this case was executed in the year 1822, and the usual reference was made to the Master to inquire who were the most proper persons to be appointed committees of the lunatic. The Master reported that the two paternal uncles of the lunatic were the fittest persons to fill that office, and that the sister of the lunatic was his sole next of kin and heiress presumptive. That report was confirmed, and the custody of the person and estate of the lunatic was granted to the two paternal uncles on their giving the usual security; and it was referred to the Master to settle the proper sum to be allowed for the maintenance of the lunatic; a state of facts and proposal as to the sum to be granted for that purpose were carried in before the Master, supported by the affidavit of the confidential agent of the lunatic's father and family, who acted also as receiver of the rents of the greater part of his estates. At the time of these proceedings, the sister, heiress-at-law and only next of kin of the lunatic, was of age, and consented to the appointment of the uncles as committees; and, it was said, even requested them to undertake the troublesome duties and heavy responsibility incident to that office.

The Master adopted the proposal as to maintenance, by his report, which was confirmed by the Lord Chancellor on the 19th April, 1823; when it was ordered, that the sum of 4,9851. per annum should be allowed for the maintenance of the lunatic, and for supporting an establishment for him at his family seat, from the 5th April, 1823, and for the time to come, until further order; and the committees were to be at liberty to retain and pay that sum out of the rents and profits of the lunatic's estate; and were to be allowed the same in passing their accounts before the Master, to whom the matter was referred. This order had not been set aside, nor had any application ever been made to the Lord Chancellor to discharge it.

The committees continued to act during the whole lifetime of the lunatic, spared no expense in keeping up the establishment at the family seat, in a style suited to the rank and station of the lunatic and his family; and as to the treatment of the lunatic himself, it was stated that they spared nothing that money and the most anxious and affectionate attention could bestow, to contribute to his happiness and comfort. The lunatic died in the year 1828, leaving his sister his only next of kin and heiress-at-law, to whom letters of administration of his effects were granted. By an order made on the petition of the committees in March, 1830, it was referred to the Master, to take and pass their accounts of the receipts and payments of them and their agents, relating to the lunatic's estates, from the foot of their last account, for such period as the Master should think proper, who in taking such accounts was to make unto the committees all just allowances; and it was ordered, that the directions thereby given should be without prejudice to any proceedings on the part of the next of kin of the lunatic, relating to the said accounts, or to the said lunatic's estate, provided such proceedings were instituted within twelve months from the date of the order. The accounts of the committees were passed up to the 10th October, 1827, but not subsequently to that period.

In December, 1830, the sister and heiress-at-law and administratrix of the lunatic, with her husband, presented a petition to the Lord Chancellor, setting out the proceedings in the lunacy, and stating (amongst other things) that at the time when the commission issued, and until May, 1827, the sister of the lunatic was unmarried, and, not being conversant with business, she allowed her uncles, the committees, to take the whole management of the affairs of the lunatic; and that the same solicitor who acted for the committees acted and appeared for her in the proceedings in the lunacy before and after her marriage, till 1823, when the petitioners employed another solicitor; and having reason to believe that there had been some irregularities in the accounts of the committees, and that the sum allowed for the maintenance of the lunatic had not been properly applied, the solicitor of the petitioners, by their directions, began to take