Author Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 edition. Excerpt: ...in no claim under the order on which the report was founded; and the case goes no further than that a report of an infant's maintenance, in which the Master upon the inquiry as to the infant's portion finds a charge upon the infant's estate, and which is followed by the appointment of a receiver, will not take the charge out of the Statute of Limitations as to interest, a point on which I should have thought there could have been no doubt. In the present case, however, I think that the interest, from whatever period it may run, must be paid 'out of the rents; for the Court on further directions could never have parted with the rents without satisfying the interest on the charge. The question then is, from what period the interest is to be compnted? And I am of opinion, upon the authorities, that it must be computed from six years antecedent to the claim carried in before the Master. The case upon this point appears to me to be entirely governed by Hunter v. Noclrolds (2), and by Henry v. Smith (3), in which Sir Enwsan Svomm arrived at the same conclusion as was arrived at by Lord Corrannam in Hunter v. Nockolds. A petition in lunacy, after the death of the lunatic, by his committee, and a reference to the Master thereon, followed by a report, finding that a sum of money had been expended by the committee in the maintenance of the lunatic, is not a proceeding which will take the claim of the committee out of the Statute of Limitations, as against the heir-at-law of the lunatic, who was not a party to the application. A cum for a sum of 7 45l. 18s. 11¢I., alleged to have been expended in the maintenance of E. P. Wilkinson, a lunatic, by the plaintiff, who was his committee. The lunatic died in 1843, and the defendants were...