1846. EDWARDS v. Price v. Bedford. tion. Whereupon all parties concerned were ordered to attend his Lordship on the matter of the said petition this day, and counsel for the petitioners, and for the next of kin, and for Elizabeth Bedford this day attending accordingly-Upon hearing the petition and what was alleged by the counsel for the said parties, and the counsel for the next of kin and for the said Elizabeth Bedford consenting to the prayer of the said petition.-His Lordship doth order that the said Master's said report bearing date the 6th day of November, 1784, be confirmed, and it is further ordered that the sum of 2467. cash in the bank, standing in the said Accountant-General's name, placed to the credit of this cause, together with all future dividends, interest, and produce of the said 20007. Million Bank Stock, 3001. East India Stock, and 401. a year Exchequer Annuity, which shall from time to time accrue due thereon, be paid to the petitioner Elizabeth Priaulx during the life of the said Elizabeth Price, or until the further order of the Court, to be applied by her for the maintenance and behoof of the said Elizabeth Price, and towards the costs of this and the former application to the Court.-Reg. Lib. B. 1784, fol. 53. Bird v. Lefevre. sioners Eyre, Ashurst, and November, 1792. tion of one of several plaintiffs, entitled to Saturday, 3rd November, 1792, Lords Commissioners.Lords Commis- Henry Bird the younger, Esq., Samuel Bird, Esq., William Symons, Esq., and Dorothy his wife, late Dorothy Bird, spinster, and William Winstone, Esq., and Betsey his wife, late Betsey Bird, spinster, plaintiffs; Isaac Lefevre, Thomas Panton, and Elizabeth his wife, Richard Harman, Ann Pryce, Charles Upon the peti- Pryce, Peter Currie, and Sarah Currie, David Pryce, and Josiah Pryce, defendants. Whereas Samuel Bird did on the 13th day of October last, prefer his petition unto the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners for the custody of the Great Seal of Great Britain, setting forth amongst other things That the petitioner had been before, and was at the time of making the order therein mentioned, afflicted with a paralytic disorder which rendered the petitioner so weak in body and in mind as to be incapable of conducting or managing his affairs or executing proper discharges, or doing such acts as may be necessary to enable the petitioner to avail himself of the benefit of the surplus therein mentioned. stock and cash in court, stating that he was afflicted with a paralytic disorder, which rendered him incapable of conducting his affairs, order that the cash should be laid out in the pur chase of stock, and that the dividends of such stock, and of the said other stock, should be paid to his wife for his support and maintenance. 1846. That the petitioner is in very narrow circumstances, so as to render some further provision necessary to his present support EDWARDS v. and maintenance. And, therefore, it was prayed that the ABREY. Accountant-General might be directed to transfer 14677. 148. 8d. Bird v. Lefevre. South Sea Stock therein mentioned, and to pay the sum of 9627. 3s. 11d. cash in his hands, together with any further dividends which might accrue on the said stock previous to such transfer, to Anna Maria Bird the petitioner's wife, or to such other person as the Court should direct, in trust to apply the same to the use and for the support and maintenance of the petitioner, or that the said Accountant-General may be directed to pay and apply the interest of the said South Sea Stock, and of the funds or securities in which the said sum of 9627. 3s. 11d. might be invested to the said Anna Maria Bird the petitioner's said wife for the support and maintenance of the petitioner. Whereupon the parties concerned were ordered to attend their Lordships on the matter of the said petition this day, and counsel for the petitioner this day attending accordingly, upon hearing the said petition, &c. read, and what was alleged by the counsel for the petitioner, their Lordships do order that the 9627. 38. 11d. cash in the Bank standing in the name of the Accountant-General of this court in trust in the causes Bird v. Currie, Bird v. Lefevre, the plaintiff Samuel Bird's account, be laid out in the purchase of South Sea Stock, in the name and with the privity of the said Accountant-General, in trust in the said causes, the same account, and the said Accountant-General is to declare the trust thereof subject to the further order of this Court-And it is further ordered that the dividends of the said South Sea Stock when so purchased together with the dividends to accrue due on the said 14677. 14s. 8d. South Sea Stock, now standing in the name of the said Accountant-General, in trust in the said causes Bird v. Currie, Bird v. Lefevre, the plaintiff Samuel Bird's account, be from time to time paid to Anna Maria Bird the wife of the petitioner for the support and maintenance of the petitioner until the further order of this Court. -Reg. Lib. A. 1791, fol. 628. The foregoing is the order in Bird v. Lefevre, 4 Bro. C. C. 100. The report says that that was a petition that a fund in court belonging to the plaintiff, or the interest of it, might be paid to the plaintiff's wife for the maintenance of himself and his family, he being in a state of mind which, though not amounting to lunacy, was of too great imbecility in consequence of a paralytic stroke to do legal acts. And it appearing to be for the benefit of 1846. EDWARDS v. the family that the interest should be so paid, it was ordered to be paid to her from time to time. In Steed v. Calley, 2 Myl. & Keen, 52, a legacy of 201. Long Bird v. Lefevre. Annuities had been bequeathed to the wife of a man who was insane. The marginal note correctly states the course there pursued by Sir John Leach-where a sum of stock was bequeathed to a married woman whose husband was of unsound mind, though no commission of lunacy had issued against him, the Court on a bill filed by the husband and wife for payment of the legacy, transferred the fund into court to the joint account of the plaintiffs, and afterwards in consideration of the poverty of the parties made an order on the petition of the wife that the dividends should be paid to her. Conduit v. Lord A married man, neither a plaintiff nor a de fendant in the cause, entitled to an annuity, for answering which funds had been car ried to the credit of the cause, the ac count of such Saturday, 28th November, 1840, L. C.-Edward Conduit and Sally Conduit, his wife, plaintiffs; John Soane, Harriet Soane, Maria Soane the younger, and John Foxball, defendants; by original bill. The said Edward Conduit, and Sally Conduit his wife, plaintiffs; Charles Preston, Frederic Chamier, John Soane, Harriet Soane, and John Gothard and Baron Rehausen and Maria his wife, defendants; by supplemental bill. And in the matter of Joseph Gandy, &c. His Lordship doth order, that the sum of 507. cash, in the bank, placed to the credit of the causes Conduit v. Soane, Conduit v. Preston, "Joseph Gandy's Annuity Account," and by the order, dated the 31st day of July last, directed to be paid to Joseph Gandy therein named, be instead thereof paid to the petitioners Eleanor Susanna Baptiste Gandy, annuity, having the wife of the said Joseph Gandy, notwithstanding her coverture, and Thomas Gandy his son; and it is ordered, that the dividends hereafter to accrue due on the 33331. 6s. 8d. Bank £3 per Cent. Annuities, standing in the name of the Accountant-General of this Court in trust in the said causes, the like account, and which are, by the said order dated the 31st day of July last, directed to be paid to the said Joseph Gandy during his life, be instead thereof paid as and when the same shall accrue due to the petitioner Eleanor Susanna Baptiste Gandy (notwithstanding her coverture), and the petitioner Thomas Gandy, during such time as the said Joseph Gandy shall remain of incompetent mind and understanding (the same to be verified by affidavit of the petitioners Eleanor Susanna Baptiste Gandy and Thomas Gandy), they, the said Eleanor Susanna Baptiste Gandy and Thomas Gandy, undertaking to become of in competent mind and understand ing, order made that such annuity should be paid to his wife and son, they undertaking to apply the same for his benefit. apply the same moneys for the benefit of the said Joseph Gandy.— Reg. Lib. A. 1840, Fol. 106. This is the order in Conduit v. Soane, 5 Myl. & Craig, 111. 1846. EDWARDS v. Re Astley. LORD BROUGHAM said the jurisdiction exercised by the Court of Chancery, where, from the small amount of property, no commission of lunacy had been taken out, to direct an inquiry touching soundness of mind, and to make orders relative to maintenance Chancery, and support, was confined to cases of persons who were parties, or quasi parties, to suits; the funds dealt with uniformly, as he believed, standing to the credit of such suits.-Re Astley, L. C. November, 1831. In Ex parte Ridgway, in the matter of Crompton, 5 Russ. 152, the whole property of the lunatic consisted of an annuity of 501. a year bequeathed to her by one Williams, and of the arrears of such annuity, amounting to 1507. There was no commission and no suit. A petition was presented by the acting executor under the will of the lunatic's father, praying a reference to the Master to inquire into the state of her mind and the amount of her fortune; and if she should be found to be of unsound mind, that the care and custody of her estate and person might be granted to the petitioner, and that the arrears and future instalments of the annuity might be paid to him in order to be applied for her maintenance. The next of kin consented to the application, and the executors of Williams submitted to any order that the Court might make. Lord Lyndhurst stated that what this petition called upon him to do was an irregularity, and that he would not add to the number of cases in which the irregularity had been committed; and he declined to make any order on the petition. Except in those cases in which the lunatic has been received or taken charge of as a lunatic upon an order and certificates, or an order and certificate, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act 8 & 9 Vict. c. 100, or of any act thereby repealed, and shall either have been detained as a lunatic for twelve months then last past, or shall have been the subject of a report by the commissioners thereby appointed, that his property is not duly protected, or that the income thereof is not duly applied for his maintenance (see a subsequent page); and except in those cases in which there is a suit and the lunatic is a party, or quasi party, to it, and the fund to be dealt with stands to the credit of the suit, the Lord Chancellor, whether sitting in Lunacy or in Chancery, still has no where, from the small amount of property, no commission of lunacy has been taken out, to direct an inquiry touching soundness of mind, and to make orders relative to maintenance and support, is confined to cases of persons who are parties, or quasi parties, to suits-the funds dealt with standing to the credit of such suits. 1846. EDWARDS V. Re Wilton. cellor, as in trusted, by jurisdiction to comply with the prayer of such a petition. Such a petition must be considered, in the language of Lord Lyndhurst, as calling upon the Court to do an irregularity. In Gillbee v. Gillbee, 1 Phillips, 121, there was no commission, but there was a suit, and the lunatic was one of the plaintiffs. His property consisted of 5252l. Bank £3 per Cents., and 9067. cash, standing to his account in the cause, and a freehold cottage and land of the value of 71. per annum. A petition was presented in the cause, in the name of the lunatic, praying that the income might be paid to his sister (who was his sole next of kin) and her husband, to be applied by them for his maintenance, or that it might be referred to the Master to inquire into the state of mind and other circumstances of the petitioner, and to approve of some proper person or persons to receive and apply such income for his benefit, and to inquire and state what annual sum ought to be allowed for his maintenance and support. Lord Lyndhurst said that whenever the Court had to provide, not simply for a temporary occasion but for the permanent care and management of a lunatic and his property, it was inconvenient to deviate from the regular practice, and that looking at the amount of the property in this case, the expense of a commission afforded no ground for the application. Had the amount of the property been too small to bear the expense of a commission, which, under ordinary circumstances, is about 1207. Lord Lyndhurst could have had no hesitation in making the order prayed. LORD BROUGHAM said that the Lord Chancellor-as intrusted, The Lord Chan- by virtue of the King's Sign Manual, with the care and commitment of the custody of the persons and estates of lunatics-has no jurisdiction to refer it to the Master to inquire into the state of mind of lunatics, against whom no commission has issued, and to make orders relative to the care of their persons and property, and to their maintenance (a). That in certain cases where the virtue of the King's Sign Manual, with the care and commitment of the custody of the persons and estates of lunatics, has no jurisdiction to refer it to the Master to inquire into the state of mind of (a) "The Lord Chancellor has no jurisdiction to refer it to the Master to inquire into the state of mind of lunatics, against whom no commission has issued, and to pro make orders relative to the care of their persons and property, and to their maintenance." The accurate student will note that the conjunctive particle is lunatics, against whom no commission has issued, and to make orders relative to the care of their persons and property, and to their maintenance. [See now 8 & 9 Vict. c. 100, sect. 95.] |