P. 161, at end of first paragraph, add—A reference was directed to the Master to inquire what ought to be allowed for the maintenance of the illegitimate children of a lunatic, but refused as to their mother (1).

P. 188, at end of second paragraph, add-Whenever the patron of any living or benefice, to which the provisions of Gilbert's Act are proposed to be extended, shall happen to be a lunatic, his committee may transact the several matters therein mentioned for such patron, who will be bound thereby in such manner as if he had been of sound mind (m). The committees of persons of unsound mind may execute on their behalf any agreement of reference, or deed of submission, or approbation of any award or map authorized to be made, by a recent act, for identifying ecclesiastical lands (n).

P. 190, at end of third paragraph, add-As a copyholder does not derive his estate out of the interest of the lord of the manor only, but the essence of a copyhold is the custom of the manor, where a grant is made by a lord, who has a lawful estate or interest, the lord being considered as an instrument only to grant, the copyholder is in by the custom of the manor after the grant has been made, without regard to the extent of such estate or interest, or the capacity of the person, of the grantor; so that if a lord be non compos, such grants, surrenders, and admittances of and to copyholds held of the manor, as are warranted by the custom of it, will be good, notwithstanding the mental disability of the lord (0).

P. 198, at end of third paragraph, add-Where a married woman, who was the committee of the estate and person of her lunatic husband, was entitled to stock standing in the name of a trustee for her; and such stock was, under an order made in the lunacy, transferred into the name of the Accountant-General, in the matter of the lunacy, and

(1) Ex parte Haycock, in re Jones,

5 Russ. 154.

(m) 17 Geo. 3, c. 53, s. 14.

(0) Co. Cop. s. 34; 4 Rep. 23 b; 8 Rep. 63 b; Vin. Abr. Copyhold (G), pl. 18; Gilb. Ten. by Watk. 255;

(n) See 2 & 3 Wm. 4, c. 80, s. 3. 1 Watk. on Cop. by Cov. 30.

FFF

part of it was afterwards sold out and applied in payment of costs; and the lunatic died, leaving his wife him surviving; it was held, that the stock had been reduced into the possession of the lunatic, and that the wife was not entitled to it by right of survivorship (p).

P. 214, note (e), add—See In re Barry, post, p. 797.

P. 241, at end, add-In a case where the Master had reported that it would be for the benefit of the lunatic's estate, that certain furniture should be sold, and the petition prayed a sale of this furniture-It appeared, that the lunatic, when sane, had made a will, by which he bequeathed this furniture to a particular individual; and one point submitted to the Court was, whether, under such circumstances, the Court would interfere to defeat the bequest, by directing the property to be sold. Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst said, that he would not defeat the intention which the lunatic had manifested, when sane; and, therefore, that no direction should be given for the sale of the furniture (q).

P. 245, note (i), 249, note (w),

dd-This bill did not pass.

} add_1

P. 250, at end of third paragraph, insert-It was held, that the committee of a lunatic, who had received and paid over rents to a subsequent mortgagor, was not liable in an action for money had and received to a judgment creditor, to whom the land had been delivered by the sheriff under an elegit sued out upon a judgment prior to the mortgage, of which judgment there was no docket, though the issue had been docketed, which was insufficient within 4 & 5 Wm. & Mary, c. 20: the mortgagee being entitled to preference, and it being the first duty of the committee to keep down the interest of the mortgages, with the money arising from the rents (r).

P. 276, note (m), add-Swinb. p. 2, s. 3, pl. 2; Godolph. Orp. Leg. p. 1, c. 8, pl. 2.

(p) In re Jenkins, 5 Russ. 183. (9) Ex parte Haycock, in re Jones, 5 Russ. 154.

(r) Braithwaite and Another v. Watts, 2 Crompt. & Jervis, 318.

P. 301, note (t), add-The judgment of Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, on refusing the commission of review, is now reported in 5 Russ. 164-172.

P. 311, note (b), add-See 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 92, and the next note.

P. 313, at the end of first paragraph, insert-By statute 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 92, s. 1, the act 25 Hen. 8, c. 19 (s), so far as relates to the power of appeal, and the appointment of Delegates; and the 8 Eliz. c. 5, are repealed from the 1st February, 1833; and by the third section of the 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 92, it is enacted, "That from and after the said first day of February, one thousand eight hundred and thirtythree, it shall be lawful to and for every person who might heretofore, by virtue of either of the said recited acts, have appealed or made suit to his Majesty in his High Court of Chancery, to appeal or make suit to the King's Majesty, his heirs or successors, in council, within such time, in such manner, and subject to such rules, orders, and regulations, for the due and more convenient proceeding, as shall seem meet and necessary, and upon such security, if any, as his Majesty, his heirs and successors, shall from time to time by order in council direct; and that the King's Majesty, his heirs and successors, in council, shall thereupon have power to proceed to hear and determine every appeal and suit so to be made by virtue of this act, and to make all such judgments, orders, and decrees in the matter of such appeal or suit as might heretofore have been made by his Majesty's Commissioners appointed by virtue of either of the hereinbefore recited acts, if this act had not been passed; and that every such judgment, order, and decree, so to be made by the King's Majesty, his heirs and successors, shall have such

(s) The statute 25 Hen. 8, c. 19, had been repealed by 1 & 2 Phil. & Mary, c. 8, but was revived by 1 Eliz. c. 1, s. 10, but the latter act is not referred to in the 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 92,

which can, therefore, only have repealed the statute of the first of Elizabeth by implication. On repealing an act it is usual to refer to those by which it has been continued.

and the like force and effect in all respects whatsoever as the same respectively would have had if made and pronounced by the aforesaid High Court of Delegates; and that every such judgment, order, and decree shall be final and definitive, and that no commission shall hereafter be granted or authorized to review any judgment or decree to be made by virtue of this act."

By the fourth section of the act it is provided, that appeals then pending, or which may be pending previous to 1st February, 1833, shall not be affected.

P. 357, at end of first paragraph, add-The Great Seal acquires no authority to displace the right of a creditor to enforce payment of his debt, because his debtor is a lunatic, except when the party, or the agent himself, attributes that jurisdiction by intervening in the matter of the lunacy (t).

P. 404, at end of first paragraph, add─By the Irish statute, 10 Car. 1, s. 2, c. 6, no person can enter on lands except within twenty years after his right accrued; there is a saving of ten years in favour of a non compos, or his heir, after coming of sound mind.

P. 405, note (f), add-The bill for the limitation of actions relating to real property did not pass. The two other bills did. See 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71, s. 7; c. 100, s. 6.

P. 406, at end of first paragraph, add-By the fourteenth and seventeenth sections of the Irish statute 10.Car. 1, sess. 2, c. 6, the period of limitations in personal actions is the same in Ireland as in England, and contains a similar proviso in favor of persons under disabilities. By the Irish statute, 8 Geo. 1, c. 4, s. 2, in any action or suit for the recovery of any debt by bill, bond, or other specialty, where no action or suit has been prosecuted, nor interest paid within twenty years, the defendant may plead payment in bar: there is a saving in favor of any person non compos mentis, commencing his action within five years after the removal of such disability.

(1) In re Ball, 2 Molloy, 145.

P. 442, note (h), add-This case is now reported, see Ex parte Ridgway, in re Crompton, 5 Russ. 152.

P. 447, note (o), add-See post, pp. 588-621.

P. 628, after the last paragraph, add—According to the present practice, the Secretary of Lunatics draws up the order, and makes a duplicate, which is filed with the Clerk of the Custodies, who always makes an office copy. The order is filed with the Clerk of the Exceptions, who, in obedience to the directions therein contained, draws up another original order, which contains those formal directions, which enable the Accountant-General to act, and which order is entered on the records of the Court of Chancery. If funds or cash in the lunacy, which are in the Bank of England or other corporate bodies, are to be transferred or paid to the Accountant-General, each of those bodies requires an office copy to be deposited with them, previously to such transfer or payment (v).

The expense of the above orders is much increased by the present practice of introducing into them the whole recitals contained in the petitions and affidavits, upon which such orders are grounded (w).

In order to effect a purchase of stock, the order of Court, directing that the cash on the credit of any matter may be invested, must be left at the Accountant-General's office, together with a request, signed by the solicitor, desiring the sum in question to be laid out in such stock as the order may direct (x).

(v) Report on the Chancery Commission, 1826, p. 570.

(w) Ibid.

(x) Id. p. 560.