|
|
|
|
|
|
|
488 POST v. MACKALL.
fendant in Chancery must be served with process, or summoned in
like manner as if he were sane. (b) But the committee, or legally
appointed trustee of such lunatic, if he has one, who is not inte-
rested in the case, is always appointed, as of course, his guardian ad
litem. If the committee be adversely interested, or the lunatic has
no committee, then the court will, on application, appoint a guardian
to answer for him. (e) The awarding of a commission of lunacy
is not an absolute matter of right, but rests in the sound discretion
of the Chancellor. It may be withheld where no good is likely to
result from it. In this instance, the expense of the commission
could only be paid out of the fund, already, perhaps, exceedingly
deficient, which should be appropriated altogether to the benefit of
the creditors of the deceased; in which, and in many similar cases,
because of the poverty of the lunatic, as well as with a view to his
proper personal treatment, the court will act upon the fact of his
being actually in a condition of mental incapacity as fully as if he
had been found to be non compos mentis by a regular inquisition, (d)
Hence where the court is satisfied, as in this instance, by a cer-
tificate of the attending physician of the hospital in which the luna-
tic has been placed, or by such other proof as the nature of the
case will admit, that the intellectual infirmity of the defendant is
such, arising from madness, age, or any other cause, as to render
him unable to manage his own affairs, on application a guardian ad
litem may be appointed for him, and charged to defend the suit on
his behalf, (e) So on the other hand, that the rights of such an
(&) Carew v., Johnston, 2 Scho. & Lefr. 292. —(c) 2 Mad. Pra. 333; Mitf. Plea.
104; Snell v. Hyatt, Dick. 287; Lloyd v. ———, Dick. 460. —(d) Sherwood v. San-
derson, 19 Ves. 289; Ex parte Tomlinson, 1 Ves. & Bea. 57; Brodie v. Barry, 2
Ves. & Bea. 36; Ex parte Evelyn, 7 Cond. Cha. Rep. 232; Exeter v. Ward, 7 Cond.
Cha. Rep. 258; Rebecca Owings' case, 1 Bland, 290; Colegate D. Owings' case,
1 Bland, S72. —In the matter of Ann Oliver, 29 Com. Law Rep. 165 —(e) Mitf Plea.
104; Leving v. Caverly, Prec. Chan. 229; Sheldon v. Aland, S P. Will. HI, n.;
Wilson v. Grace, 14 Ves. 172; Barrett v. Tickell, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep, 70; Howlett v.
Wilbraham, 5 Mad. 423; Carew v. Johnston, 2 Scho. & Lefr. 292,
WORTHINGTON v. CRADDOCK. —Bill for a conveyance in specific performance of
the agreement of the deceased ancestor of the defendants. Subpaena issued and re-
turned summoned. A writ de idiota inquirendo issued to enquire into the idiocy of the
defendant Eleanor Worthington. Inquisition taken and returned finding her an idiot,
which being confirmed, John Cradlock was appointed her committee, required to
give bond, &c. Whereupon John Craddock and Benjamin Nicholson were appointed
& committee for the idiot, to take her answer and defend the suit in her behalf.
October, 1784. —Decreed, that a conveyance be made as prayed; and that a day be
given to the infants to shew cause on their coming of age as usual. Bat there was
no reservation as to the idiot, —Chancery Proceedings, lib. No, 2, fol. 135, 265, 272.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
