432 JONES v. JONES—1 BLAND.

* Government to pass any law, or to do any act which shall
458 result in thus divesting any one of his property, or impair-
ing his rights without his express consent. It is a general rule of
law, from which no Court of justice should permit itself to deviate,
that no citizen can, in any way, be deprived of his property with-
out his consent; otherwise than as a punishment; or as a means of
compelling him to pay his debts, and comply with his contracts.
If, being competent to consent, he refuses to allow his property to
be applied to a public purpose, it cannot, even in that ease, be
taken from him without an adequate compensation. But, if the
owner be incompetent to contract, or to manage his own affairs, a
Court of justice never undertakes, even to alter the nature of his
property from realty to personalty, or the reverse; except from
necessity and for his obvious advantage. 1 Mad. Cltan. 339; Hig/h
Lun. 60, 69. So too, although this Court has been expressly
authorized, by various Acts of Assembly, for the benefit of an
infant, or person non compos mentis, to have his real estate sold
and converted into personalty; yet. as he can give no consent to
any such conversion, it is but just, that his rights and interests

be. received, applicable to the allowance to R. Roloson and wife and her chil-
dren, into Court for further order. A copy of this application and order to
be sent to the trustee.

Adam Waltemeyer and Rachel his wife by their petition stated, that she
was one of the children of Margaret Roloson; and as such was one of those
who, under the will of John Wells, was entitled to take after the death of
Margaret. Upon which they prayed, that the one-sixth of the proceeds, to
which Margaret was entitled for life, might be so invested as that the inte-
rest or profits only should be paid to her during her life, securing the whole
to the use of her children after her death.

KILTY, C., 25th July, 1818.—On considering the proceedings in this suit,
and particularly the order of February 34th, 1818, allowing to R. and M.
Roloson a certain portion of the sum reported instead of the use of the
whole sum for life: the proportion of A. Waltemeyer of the residue includ-
ing interest paid in is found to be $142.56, for which sum a check in his favor
will be ordered.

Margaret Roloson by her petition stated, that conceiving herself entitled,
during her life, to the interest arising from one-sixth of the purchase money
received from the sale of the property in the proceedings mentioned, or such
part thereof as now remained in the Chancery office, she prayed, that the
same might be invested in some way for her exclusive use and benefit; so
that she might during her life receive the interest thereof, notwithstanding
her coverture, for her own separate use; and not subject to the coatrol of
her husband, as she will receive no benefit whatever from it if paid to him.

KILTY, C., 24th February, 1820.—The petitioner is referred to the order of
the 24th February, 1818, on her petition with her husband, by which a cer-
tain sum was allowed to him in lieu of her interest.