380 COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE.

in order to recover his property, he is therefore utterly without
remedy for the maintenance of himself and family during the con-
tinuance of his insanity.

This however is not altogether correct. A right of property
necessarily implies, that its owner has a remedy for the recovery of
it; and also, that he is invested with the means of protection in
the enjoyment of such property as the law allows him to dispose
of without any other limit than that in doing so he shall not injure
his fellow citizen. But if the owner has a wife and children he is
bound to maintain them, at least so far as his property affords him
the means. This maxim applies only to the contracts of the
lunatic; it does not prevent him from vindicating his right to his
property by an action of ejectment, trespass, trover, &c.(t) nor
does it release him from any obligation, which his property will
enable him to discharge. Now it is in execution of this his own
right, and in fulfilment of this his duty to his family, that the
Court of Chancery has always acted, in taking care of persons
who are non compos mentis, and their estates. For the court is
bound, in behalf of the State, to keep the lunatic, his wife, chil-
dren and household with the profits of his lands and estate, and to
apply the whole to their use; although he recovers not his memory,
but continues non compos mentis.(u)

But we are told, that although the lunatic himself may be fet-
tered by this maxim, yet there is a mode in which he may obtain
redress; and that his heirs and personal representatives are not
bound by this maxim. A commission of lunacy may be taken
out, he may be declared a lunatic, and a committee appointed to
take charge of his person and estate; and such committee may
sue and have any deed, made by the lunatic, during his insanity,
vacated for his benefit. But why this circuity ? The issue joined
between the committee of the lunatic and his grantee must be
exactly the same, and it must be met by precisely the same proof
as if the lunatic himself had been the party. But even this cir-
cuitous mode of redress, is often lame, tardy, or wholly inefficient.
It is, however, better than none at all.

But if a lunatic, in the condition of having been defrauded of
his property, should recover his reason, then there is an end even
of this circuitous remedy. He is discharged from the government
and protection of his committee, and left to regain his property as

(I) 3 Bac. Abr. 541,—(u) Beverley's Case, 4 Co. 127.