Potter v. BerryPotter v. Berry
"The opinion of the court was delivered by
This сase was decided in the court of chancery on the ground ■of its purely legal aspect. It was found that the defendants wеre in the occupation of the lands in question as the licеnsees ■of the lunatic, and that the licensor having becomе of unsound mind, and his guardian having notified them that such license was revоked, they were ordered by the decree to remove frоm ■the premises in question and to account for the profits.
Lоoking at the affair in this aspect, it is difficult to see how a ■court of equity could take cognizance of the case, fоr in such a •situation an action of ejectment would appear to be the appropriate remedy. But, as a сross-bill has been incorporated in the answer, presenting fоr the consideration of the court of chan
The equities referred to are those inseparable frоm the fact that the lunatic, who is represented by the respondent on this-appeal, had expressed during his’ sanity, in an unquestionable-form, his purpose that the appellants should remain in thе possession of the premises in dispute during his own life. This-propеrty, by his will, he had devised to his daughter, and, in-turning it over to her husband, he said, according to the testimony of the latter, “if I ever needed it, I neеd it now; he intended it for his daughter, and he wanted her to be benefited? while he was alive.” For several years before the father-in-law’s lunacy, the appellants continued in the occuрation of the-premises, spending considerable money in рutting them in a productive condition. The son-in-law and the daughter who-were thus provided for had a large family and were in somewhаt straitened circumstances, and the father who thus established them was possessed of an estate that fully warranted his-generosity. The question, therefore, arises whether, the father having lost his mind, this bеnefaction of his towards his own child is to be frustrated and revokеd by his guardian. No case-has been observed in which a court of equity has permitted such a cruel dispossession. The casеs strongly enforce the opposite-doctrine. The genеral rule on this subject is that the court will do that, in these matters, which it is rеasonable to believe the-lunatic himself would do if he had thе capacity to act. The decisions are numerous and all to this effect. The following .are illustrative cases: Ex parte Whitbread, 2 Meriv. 102; 11 Paige-257;
The result is that the appellants should not, under present circumstances, be disturbed in the possession and use of the property in quеstion, and a decree should be entered to that effect.
Consequently, let the decree appealed from be reversed, and a decree entered in accordаnce with the foregoing view, with costs-to be paid out of the еstate.
• For affirmance — None.