COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE. 375

this day by Messrs. Winchester and Gwinn, the solicitors of the
plaintiff.

On passing the order for reinstating this case, it seemed doubt-
ful whether the plaintiff was then in such a state of dotage as to
warrant the issuing of a writ de lunatico inquirendo. Such a writ
was not asked for by any one. The expression of an opinion to
that extent therefore, was not then considered necessary; and it
was deemed best to leave the question as to the commencement
and nature of her mental imbecility, as regards the matter in dis-
pute, to be determined at the final hearing. Upon mature delibe-
ration it seemed at that time, however, to be within the scope of
the powers of this court to protect the plaintiff, without the inter-
vention of a writ de lunatico inquirendo, from all personal restraint,
or undue influence in any way, or by any one; and also, by the
appointment of a receiver, or otherwise, to protect the property in
litigation from waste, and to have its proceeds applied to her sup-
port until the matter in controversy could be heard and determined.
With a view therefore, as speedily as possible to release this aged
plaintiff from all improper restraint, and of placing her in a condi-
tion of undisturbed comfort, and of having the property in dispute
taken care of,

It is ordered, that any two or more of the medical professors of
the University of Maryland, who have not heretofore expressed
any opinion upon the intellectual condition of the said plaintiff
Colegate D. Owings, be and they are hereby authorized and
requested to visit and converse with her; and that she be per-
mitted without the least molestation or undue persuasion whatever,
from any one, forthwith, or at any time to go to and dwell in the
house of any one willing to receive her, as may be thought proper
or advisable by the said physicians, or a majority of them. And
the said physicians shall as soon as practicable make report to this
court of their proceedings, and of their opinion of the health and
present intellectual condition of the said plaintiff, (g) And it is
further ordered, that the matter of the said representation of the
said solicitors be finally heard and disposed of on the twenty-third
day of October next. Provided a copy of this order, together with
a copy of the said representation be served on the said defendant,
or her solicitor, on or before the twenty-fourth instant. Each party

(g) Ridgeway v. Darwin, 8 Ves. 67; Ex parte Tomlinson, 1 Ves. & Beu59;
Shelf. Lun. 62, 399,