REBECCA OWINGS' CASE. 293

The predicament of this case is different. The right is admitted
to be exclusively in one only of the plaintiffs; and the special
prayer is, that the relief may be decreed to the two, who have no
interest, for the use of the one who has the right. Cromwell and
wife, it is clear, can have none, or a very remote interest in the
matter now in controversy. The care of Rebecca's person was
commended to them by the last will of her mother. But it is not
even intimated, that they have been thus clothed with the charac-
ter of her testamentary guardians; and there is in fact not the
least foundation for their assuming any such office. They are not
the prochein amys of Rebecca, because they do not so present
themselves; nor do they state her to be an infant, feme covert,
or lunatic; or to be in that situation in which they would be author-
ized to accompany her into court as prochein amys. It may be
inferred from what is said in one of the books of practice, that a
lunatic may sue by procheim amy ;(b) the expressions of the com-
piler are, however, unwarranted, in that sense, by any adjudged
case whatever. But according to the loose proceedings of the Land
Office, it seems, that a warrant of resurvey was obtained by his
next friend for the benefit of one who was then non compos mentis,
although not found to be so by inquisition.(c) A lunatic, that is,
one who has been found and returned to be non compos mentis, can
only sue by his committee.(d) Rebecca has not been judicially
declared a lunatic; and consequently she can have no committee
by whom to institute any suit.

It follows, therefore, that if there are no other principles upon
which Cromwell and wife may be associated in this suit with
Rebecca, no relief can be granted upon this bill as it now stands,
but it must be amended or dismissed, (e)

Generally and technically speaking, those only are called luna-
tics who have been so found and returned. Without an inquest
and return thereon, no one can be judicially treated as a lunatic,
and be debarred of his liberty, or have the management of his pro-
perty taken from him. The power to divest a citizen of his per-
sonal freedom and of his property is one of a most extraordinary
and delicate nature; and should, therefore, never be exercised
without observing every precaution required by the law. But,
although this court will, in no case, undertake to go all lengths;

(6) 1 Harr. Pra. Chan. 773.—(c) Land H. A. 150.—(d) 2 Mad. Chan. 175; 1 Harr.
Pra. Chan. 762.—(e) The King of Spain v. Machado, 4 Russ.225,