Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/502

486 486 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. the " interest " which a landed proprietor has in his successor's fit- ness is apt to indicate the basis of the jurisdiction, for clearly it is not " interest," in any legal sense, in the man who will stand in his shoes, but rather the custom of ordinary and reasonable English- men to provide for their heirs or successors. Notice how the law hardens. After Re Evans, supra, and this case, first cousins have probably no chance in England. On the other hand, nephews have on the authorities a strong case. These are all the English authorities. In America the case of i?^ Willoughby, ii Paige, 257 (1844), is the only one that goes into the matter at all, although cases like Hambleton's Appeal, 102 Pa. St. 50, and Halsey's Appeal, 13 Atl. R. 934 (see p. 477, supra), approach the line between Class B. and the principal class of cases. Re Willoughby, how- ever, is explicit; and the matter is carefully considered by the distinguished Chancellor. 1884. In re Willoughby, a lunatic, 11 Paige, 257. The case was a petition by the wife of a lunatic for an allowance out of his income to support her daughter by a former marriage. The wife was the lunatic's guardian or " committee." The Chancellor, Walworth, said : " How far the court ought to go in making provision out of the estate of a lunatic for the mainten- ance of the relatives of such lunatic who have no legal claims upon him or his estate, has never yet been determined. It has frequewtly been decided, however, that where the income of the estate is large, so as to be much more than sufficient for the support of the luna- tic and of those members of his family for whom he is bound by law to provide, the court may make an allowance out of such income to his near relatives who are in need of assistance. This is done almost as a matter of course in reference to the children of the lunatic or other descendants who are presumptively entitled to his estate in case of his death, and where there is but little or no hope of his recovery. I know such orders have been made by this court within the last fifteen years in three or four different cases, where the estates were large, and the incomes much more than suf- ficient for the support of the lunatics and of all those who had a legal claim upon such lunatics for support and maintenance. But my present recollection is that in all those cases I required the adult children, who were competent to support themselves, to give a stipulation that the amounts advanced to them respectively should be brought into hotchpot upon the death of the lunatic, if any part