Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/503

487 THE SURPLUS INCOME OF A LUNATIC. 48/ of his personal estate should come to them under the statute of distributions. This principle of considering the allowance as an advance, to be brought into hotchpot in distribution, has not, how- ever, been extended to children of the lunatic who were sickly or decrepit, so as to give them a special claim upon the estate of the lunatic. The court, in such cases, acts for the lunatic, and in refer- ence to his estate, as it supposes the lunatic himself would have acted if he had been of sound mind." The Chancellor made no allowance, being satisfied that the step- daughter was not deserving, but expressed his entire conviction that the law would warrant one in proper circumstances, and cited Re Earl of Carysfort {supra, p. 479) with approval. 1891. Re S. T. H. Suffolk, Mass. probate files. In this case, the lunatic being amply provided for, an allowance of ^350 per annum was made to his father. There is difficulty in explaining this upon any other ground than that set forth as the ratio decidendi of the cases above. An account of the case is given at length in a note.^ 1 Petition. RepectfuHy represents W^. B. D. that he is guardian of S. T. H., an in- sane person heretofore committed by said court to the McLean Asylum. That said ward has no wife, children, issue, or mother living. That his only heir-at-law apparent or presumptive is his father, L. F. H., of. . . who is aged, and in destitute circum- stances, and in feeble health. That the only heirs-at-law apparent or presumptive of said L. are the following: [Two sons beside the lunatic; seven children of a deceased daughter.] That the estate of said ward, so far as can be ascertained, will be more than sufficient for his suitable maintenance during his life, and that it is his desire that some suitable provision may be made for the support of his said father. Wherefore your petitioner prays that he may be authorized to pay to said L. F. H. .. . for his support a sum not exceeding $350 per year, payable in monthly instalments, until fur- ther order of this court, and that the same may be allowed your petitioner as a charge against the estate of his ward in his accounts with said estate. — W. B. D., Guardian. Assent of two other sons and the one of the seven grandchildren who was of age. Decree, — "And it appearing to the court that it is the desire of said ward and for his benefit that said provision be made for the support of his father, it is decreed," &c. [following prayer]. — John W. McKiM, March 16, 1891, A man's father is not a member of his family. By P. S. ch. 84, § 6 (Stat, of 1793, ch. 59), kindred oi paupers, ascendants or descend- ants, living in this State, and of sufficient ability, shall be bound to support such pau- pers. By §§ 7 ff. proceedings in the Superior Court are provided, and that court can assess such weekly sum as it shall deem reasonable and sufficient upon the said kin- dred. This applies apparently only to persons standing in need of public relief, Hutchings v. Thompson, 10 Cush. 239; cf. Groveland v. Medford, I Alien, 23; and little if any more than a pauper's allowance seems to have been. In Templeton v. Stratton, 128 Mass. 137, $1.50 per week was assessed. The principal case would, there- fore, seem to be a precedent of the kind of allowance discussed in this article. For this case we are indebted to the kindness of Hon. W. B. Durant of the Boston bar. It may be mentioned that the allegation of the ward's desire is not to be under- stood as indicating any interval of sanity.