HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0653 and id is 1 raw text is: ANNESLEY'S CASE
Mr. Hargrave's argument in this case. Harg. St. Tr. 11 Vol. 339. Shanley v. Harvey,
2 Eden, 126. See in Williams v. Brown, 3 Bos. & P. 69. See Lord Stowell's judgment
in the matter of a slave woman called Grace, delivered in the Admiralty Court, 6 Nov.
1827, in which case his Lordship held, that a slave returning to the colony where she
had been in slavery, was notwithstanding her having been in England, still liable to all
the disabilities of slavery.
[78] Case 34.-In the Matter of ANNSMLEY, a Lunatic. Oct. 21, 1749,
Court will not allow committee of a lunatic any thing for his trouble.(1) (The editor
finds, upon enquiry at the office of the secretary of lunatics, that the order-book for
the year 1749 has been missing for several years past.)
Petition by Annesley, the younger son and committee of the lunatic (who had £400
a-year allowed him out of the lunatic's estate for maintaining the lunatic), to be further
allowed a sum of money reported by the master for his trouble in taking care of the
lunatic's estates, which are large, and lie dispersed in England and in Ireland. The next
of kin, who are entitled to the personal estate of the lunatic after his death, consented to
his having such allowance, so far as by law they could give such consent; but Lord Hard-
wicke, C., refused to make any order, for the rule of the court is otherwise. Trustees (2)
or committees of lunatics appointed by the Court never have any allowance made
them for their trouble ; they are supposed to have regard for the lunatic and his family,
and are often his relations, or at least friends, and undertake the care upon charitable
motives; and therefore, as it never had been done, he would not make a precedent
now for himself and successors. This present case, he said, had less favourable cir-
cumstances in it, than where a stranger is committee, for the plaintiff is younger son
of the lunatic, and is bound in duty to this trust : nor is the consent of the next of kin
(so far as they are by law capable of consenting) ground sufficient to obtain the allow-
ance, for. it is the interest of the lunatic which the Court regards ; and though they
are next of kin at present, yet the lunatic may outlive them, and the personal estate
after his death go into other hands.
But as there must be great trouble in the management of the estates, and to save
making a precedent, the petitioner was directed to prefer a petition to have an increase
of allowance for maintenance, in which petition he was not to take any notice of the
master's report; and on that petition, his Lordship said, he would order an additional
allowance of £200 a-year ; and the present petition was dismissed.
(1) Anon. 10 Ves. 104 ; but this rule is not universal, for there are cases in which
the Court will allow a salary to the committee. See Ex parte Fermor, 1 Jacob, 404.
Ex parte Ord, ib. 94. Where no person can be found who will act as committee, without
recompence, a receiver is generally appointed with a salary. Ex parte Warren, 10 Ves.
622. Ex parte Radcliffe, 1 J. & W. 22. Ex parte Billinghurst, post, 104.
(2) That the Court will not make any allowance to trustees for their time and trouble,
see Robinson v. Pell, 3 P. W. 249. Chambers v. Goldwin, 9 Ves. 272. Burden v.
Burden, 1 V. & B. 170. Marshall v. Holloway, 2 Swanst. 432. Brocksopp v. Barnes,
5 Madd. 90; and see Ayliff v. Murray, 2 Atk. 60. Re Ormsby, 1 B. & B. 189.
[79] Case 35.-HORN against HORN. In Chancery, Nov. 14, 1749.
Judgment on bond and nulla bona returned on a f/. fa.; then plaintiff brought bill to
have satisfaction out of stock, in the name of trustees ; afterwards plaintiff takes
defendant on a ca. sa. Bill dismissed. Execution on ca. sa. is satisfaction of the debt
at law, and equity will not lend assistance.-[No Entry in L. R.] Balch v. Wastall,
1 Wms. 445. Ex parte Townsend, June 1733. Ex parte Stricklin, Feb. 2, 1775.
Action was brought on a bond for £1500, and judgment obtained. A fi. fa. issued
against the defendant's goods, and nulla bona returned. After that the plaintiff,
finding the defendant had some public stock in trustees names, filed a bill to subject
it to the payment of her debt. The next term after the bill was filed, and before an
answer was put in, the plaintiff arrested the defendant's body by ca. sa. and he was
now in custody. It was insisted on the part of the plaintiff, that she might have her
AMDB. 78.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0653&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)