Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/495

479 THE SURPLUS INCOME OF A LUNATIC. 479 Here the lunatic had an income much greater than was neces- sary to support her comfortably. One of her nephews, an adult, had an income of i^300 per annum; the other, a clergyman, had each of the nephews ;^r50 a year out of the lunatic's estate. The nephews were next in remainder to the lunatic under a family set- tlement. The court cited Ex parte Whitbread, saying that such cases were to be treated with the greatest caution. Nothing was said about treating the allowances as advances, possibly because the beneficiaries were practically the only persons entitled in remainder. 1838. Re Creagh, i Dr. & Wals. (Irish Ch.) 323. In 1793 R. C. was found a lunatic. Out of his income of ;^25co he had been cared for, and all incumbrances on his estate paid off. His maintenance had been £dfiO per annum, and the Master found that he was incapable of receiving additional comfort. After several references to a Master to inquire into the circumstances of the nephews and nieces, next of kin, the question came on before Plunket, L. C, of confirming a report recommending allowances of sessed of small properties subject to incumbrances, which if called in would swallow up" everything, or were totally without means. The order was made accordingly. The excellent argument for the petitioner relied upon the test of Ex parte Whitbread, supra, and apparently the order was confirmed upon that ground, for there is no opinion. 1840. Re Earl of Carysfort, Cr. & Ph. ^6. Here the lunatic's income was ;i^io,ooo, his surplus income vant from 18 17, when the commission issued, to 1840, when, his " age and infirmities having rendered him incapable of giving that attention to the lunatic which his malady required," the committee proposed a pension of ;i^6o. The Master submitted the question to the judgment of the Lord Chancellor (Cottenham). The next of kin consented. The Lord Chancellor thought the proposal " very reasonable," but asked for precedents; none were furnished, but it appearing that the committee " were satisfied that the allowance was one which the lunatic, if he should ever recover, would approve, the Lord Chancellor made the order." This illustrates the way in which the true principle is confused by the incorrect habit of judging what the special lunatic would
 * ^288 per annum. Yet the Lord Chancellor (Cottenham) allowed
 * ^iOO to each of seven nephews and nieces who were either " pos-
 * ^8400. John Wright had lived with the lunatic as personal ser-