Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/497

481 THE SURPLUS INCOME OF A LUNATIC. 48 1 also contributed toward their support, if she was not incapable of doing so." The proposition of the case is that the court cannot be sure that the average Englishwoman would consider that her brother's bastards had any claim upon her.^ 1844. Ex parte Lenehan and O'Geran. Re Hennessy, i J. & La T. (Irish Ch.) 29. A creditor of a brother of the lunatic applied to have the brother's allowance impounded. Sugden, L. C, merely said, " I cannot give it to his creditors : it is given to him in order to enable him to live in a respectable manner." Whatever ought to be done in ethics, it is clear that the average man would support his brother, and not clear that he would pay his debts. It follows that the creditors should have no standing, how- ever large the allowance, and so are the subsequent cases. Re Weld, infra. 1845. -^^ Earl of Laneborough, 7 Ir. Eq. R. 606. Here two children were entitled in remainder to one of the luna- tic's estates. Their mother petitioned for an allowance for their maintenance out of a surplus apparently ample. The opinion of Sugden, L. C, is very short and unsatisfactory. It is as follows: " I cannot do this. It is out of all order and without precedent. It is to take one man's money and give it to another." The motion was unopposed, the committee appearing by counsel. It would seem that there must have been some special circumstances un- reported, for the decision is certainly inconsistent with Re Creagh, supra, and with the clear English rule, which shows special favor to those in remainder. Re Sparrow, infra. 1846. Re Thomas, 2 Ph. 169. This was a petition for a reference of the subject of the purchase of a West India estate worth ;i^2000, for the lunatic's son, out of the cotpiis of the lunatic's not very large estate. Cottenham, L. C, " I never heard of such a thing. . . . If you can find any prece- dent. . . you may mention it again ; but if there is none I shall certainly not make one." It would seem from the report that the corpus, having in view the lunatic's condition, could not safely be so diminished. 1847. R^ Clarke, 2 Ph. 282. Here the lunatic was tenant for life, remainder to his next 1 But compare Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, i J. & W. 647, 1820. Increase of main- tenance of an infant for the benefit of an illegitimate brother, born of the same father and mother, who was unprovided for.