Burke et al. v. Wheaton

Burke et al. v. Wheaton. The Court will appoint a committee here to take care of the property of a person found lunatic in Maryland. The mode of ascertaining the lunacy is hy a writ in nature of a writ de lunático inquirendo. This was a petition to the Court to appoint a committee of the estate of Major Wheaton, who was found lunatic in Baltimore ; there being property in this county. t The Court will take notice of the proceedings of a foreign court finding a party lunatic. Ex parte Otto Lewis, 1 Ves. Sen. 298. In Ex parte Gillatn, 2 Ves., Jr. 587, the Solicitor-General said, “ For he had been found lunatic by a competent jurisdiction in the country in which he was. Lord Thurlow thought that a sufficient ground to consider him a lunatic; the country, which is alone the judge, having found him so.” “ Lord Chancellor: That distinction I think a very sound one; for the personal capacity, in general, is regulated by the law of the country.” The reason why, in New York, a foreign inquisition is not sufficient, is, that the statute only authorizes the Chancellor to appoint committees for those who should be found lunatic by that court. [MAJORITY] The CouRT (ThRüston, J., absent,) appointed Dr. Laurie, committee. The Act of Maryland, 1785, c. 72, § 6, authorizes the Chancellor to superintend the affairs of lunatics, and to appoint a committee, &c., but does not direct the mode of ascertaining who are lunatics. This must be done by a writ in the nature of a writ de lunático inquirendo, which issues by order of the Court upon affidavit.