estate, out of the rents and profits thereof (the 3871. 1s. 6d.) to Jonas Hobson, the committee of the lunatic's person. The said Charlotte Radcliffe had been entitled to a legacy of 4000l. sterling, charged upon real estates, and which legacy had never been wholly paid; but the above two sums of 26251. Navy five per cents., and 1575l. Consols had been appropriated in part satisfaction of such legacy. Ledyard, the receiver, was the administrator of Charlotte Radcliffe, and in that character had procured the two last mentioned sums of stock to be transferred into his name; and the rents and profits of the lunatic's real estates a short time after the order of the 24th December, 1824, proving insufficient to pay the allowance for the lunatic's maintenance, the said Daniel Ledyard had, for a great many years, made up the deficiency out of the dividends of the said stocks. On the 2d August, 1834, there was an order in the lunacy that the Master should inquire whether some and what proceedings were not proper for ascertaining and getting in the clear residuary estate of Charlotte Radcliffe. The Master reporting in the affirmative, the above suit was instituted, in which Daniel Ledyard, as her administrator, was a defendant, and under an order made in the cause by the Master of the Rolls on the 16th February, 1837, Ledyard transferred 27561. 5s. New three and a-half per cent. Annuities, into which the Navy stock had been converted, and the 15757. Consols, into the name of the Accountant-general in trust in such cause. There had been no further proceedings in the suit. The consequence of this transfer being to deprive Daniel Ledyard, the receiver, of the opportunity of making good the deficiency of the rents and profits of the real estates for the lunatic's maintenance out of the dividends of the aforesaid stock, a petition was now presented in the cause and in the lunacy, which prayed that the Accountant-general might be ordered to pay such dividends to Daniel Ledyard, as the receiver of the lunatic's estate; and further, that a portion of the stock might be sold to liquidate the costs of all parties in the lunacy since the last taxation thereof. In support of the petition it was urged, that if ever there was a case in which the Court was justified in dealing with an estate in the absence of a report of debts it was the present. The intestate, Charlotte Radcliffe, had been dead more than nineteen years, and she had died under circumstances that rendered it extremely improbable that she should have left any debts that her administrator would not have immediately liquidated; besides it was only proposed to take the dividends and a small part of the capital. But the Lord Chancellor declined to make an order as prayed; however his lordship thought that all inconvenience to the lunatic would be avoided by ordering the Accountant-general to pay the dividends of the stock to Daniel Ledyard, as the administrator of Charlotte Radcliffe, instead of as the receiver of the lunatic's estate, thus giving him the opportunity, under his own responsibility, of applying a portion of the dividends in supplying what was wanting for the lunatic's maintenance. His lordship's order was, that the dividends from time to time to accrue on the 15751. Bank three per cent. Annuities, and 27561. 5s. Bank New three and a-half per cent. Annuities, which were standing in the name of the said Accountantgeneral, in trust in the said cause of Radcliffe v. Carter, should be, as and when such dividends should become due and payable, paid by the said Accountant-general to the said Daniel Ledyard, as the administrator of the said Charlotte Radcliffe, deceased, who was to give credit for the same on passing his account as such administrator as aforesaid. And that it should be referred to Lord Henley, the Master, to whom the matter of the said lunacy stood referred, to inquire and certify whether there were any and what debts remaining due and owing from the estate of the said Charlotte Radcliffe. And after the said Master should have made his report such further order should be made as should be just. And that it should be also referred to the said Master (Lord Henley) to tax the reasonable and proper costs, charges, and expenses of the committee of the estate of the said lunatic, and also of the committee of the person of the said lunatic, and also of the next of kin of the said lunatic, incurred in and about the matter of the said lunacy subsequent to the last taxation thereof, and of that application and consequent thereAnd all further directions as to the fund out of which the said costs, charges, and expenses respectively should be paid was reserved. And due notice of attending the said Master was to be given to such person or persons as would be entitled to a distributive share or distributive shares of the said lunatic's estate in case he were dead intestate. on. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Girdlestone, for the petitioner and respondents, parties in the cause or lunacy. receiver of the lunatic's estate, form of order ap pointing a committee for the institution of a suit. In this lunacy a receiver was appointed in consequence There being a of there being no person who would act gratuitously as the committee of the estate. See Exparte Radcliffe, 1 Jacob & Walker, 639. But for the purposes of the above suit, it became necessary that a committee of the estate should be appointed, and by an order made in the lunacy, 14th November, 1835, there was a reference to the Master to appoint such committee, and the Master having made. his report, another order was passed in the lunacy, dated the 5th January, 1836, by which it was ordered, that the care and management of the estate of the said lunatic should be granted to Charles Robinson for the time to come, until further order, without his giving the usual security; and under the circumstances a receiver of the said lunatic's estate having been appointed, it was thereby further ordered, that the said Charles Robinson should be restrained from receiving any part of the property and effects of the said lunatic until further order. L. C. July 14, 1838. Court in direct ing a reference as to proper expenditure. UMBLEBY V. KIRK, HODGSON and others. Intention of the WILLIAM UMBLEBY devised and bequeathed his real and personal estates for the benefit of his six infant children. The defendant Hodgson was the trustee and executor, and he by his answer stated, that in order to make certain houses, part of the real estate, productive he had expended in improvement 6007. or thereabouts, and that he had laid out other monies in the maintenance of the children, and in putting one of them out as an apprentice. Inquiries were offered as to what monies had been properly expended and laid out for the purposes aforesaid, when it was suggested, that according to the practice of some of the Masters, there would be a report as of course, that none of the monies had been properly expended and laid out, inasmuch as the will gave to the defendant Hodgson no power to apply any thing that might come to his hands in improvements, or maintenance, or an apprentice fee. But the Lord Chancellor said, that such a report would fail of executing his intention. That when the Court made such a reference it might generally be implied, that such an expenditure and outlay of the fund in question would be protected, although not authorized by the terms of the will, provided it should turn out to be to the advantage of the objects of the trust, by increasing the value of their property, or by affording them suitable support or advancement. It was with a view to this last point, and unconnected with the authority conferred by the will, that the Court desired the Master's assistance in such cases. Mr. Wigram and Mr. Pitman for the plaintiffs. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Goodeve for the defendants. JOHN COOK V. JAMES COLLINGRIDGE, C. L. GRAY, and MARIA his Wife, and others. L. C. August 9, 1837. Extent of relief cumbrancer upon a fund in Court is entitled by petition in the cause. THE defendant Mrs. Gray had assigned her life estate in considerable funds standing in this cause to the credit of to which an inherself and children as a security for advances made to her husband, and the interest upon such advances being in arrear, a petition was presented to have the debt liquidated out of the dividends of such fund; and after discussion, an order was made to that end; but the Lord Chancellor took occasion to observe, that in a contested case the only relief which upon such a petition the incumbrancer is in strictness entitled to, is to restrain the transfer of the fund and payment of the dividends, and that any ulterior relief can only be had upon bill filed for the purpose. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Girdlestone, and Mr. Bethell for the different parties. ROBERT TASKER V. ARTHUR GEORGE SMALL and THE defendant A. G. Small, prior to his marriage with 15,000l. for the de L.C. November 18, 1837. One defendant appeals. Order made thereupon dismissing bill upon grounds equally applidefendants who did not join in the appeal. Such cable to other other defend ants can have ject to a power of raising a sum of no benefit of such order, al though it ren ders the decree |