Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/492

476. HARVARD LAW REVIEW. by looking at him only. And it considers that it is for his interest that his brothers and sisters should be ^brought up in respectable stations; " and he goes on: "We will go the length of giving them maintenance out of his provision as a part of the maintenance made for him, though to be applied to them." And so in Re Weld, 20 Ch. D. at 457, (C. A.) 1882, Jessel, M. R., speaking of " an allowance without account made by the court to a person in a fiduciary position," says : " The purpose for which the allowance is made is defined, and there are no doubt many cases, especially in the Chancery Division [as opposed to Lunacy], where such an allowance is purposely made larger than is wanted for the purpose named, with the object of indirectly benefiting the person to whom the allowance is made, the court having no juris- diction to benefit that person directly. A very common instance is the case of a man of large fortune leaving an infant eldest son, who takes the great bulk of his property, but leaving an insufficient provision for his widow and younger children. . . . When such an allowance is made of course no account is asked for, so long as the establishment is kept up and the children are properly maintained." And a little farther on he speaks of seeing that " the school bills of the children " are paid, showing that the court acts on the assumption that its allowance is not to the ward. To this class also belong cases where the legal duty of the ward, e. g. to support his wife and family,^ is liberally performed by the court for him.^ It is evident that this class of cases sometimes, as in Re Weld ftself, presents the singular and unpleasant spectacle of a court attempting to cheat itself, and to do indirectly without limit, what 1 The Statute of Prerogatives, upon which jurisdiction in Lunacy substantially de- pends, requires the expenditure of the lunatic's income not only upon his maintenance but upon that of his family. For a definition of family, as used in statutes, see the remarks of Kenyon, C. J., in Rex v. Darlington, 7 T. R. 797 (1792) ; Woodworth v. Comstock, 10 Allen, 425 (1865), authorities in 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 803, and the law dictionaries, such as Bouvier. The interpretation of the word in wiils is to be distinguished. 2 This class comprises the following cases among others (the list is not intended to be. exhaustive) : Bird v. Lefevre, 4 Bro. C. C. 100 (1792) (Income of paralytic imbe- cile paid to wife for maintenance of family) ; Conduit v. Soane, Re Gandy, 5 Myl. & C. Ill (1840); Netileshipp t/. Nettleshipp, 10 Sim. 236 (1839) (Husband and wife, main- tenance) ; Edwards v. Abrey, 2 Ph. 37 (1846) (Husband and wife), s. c. 15 L. J. N. s. Ch. 404, and 10 Jur. 650 (the reports differ materially). Re Senate Resolution, 21 Pac. Rep. 485 (Colo. Allowance to wife). Re Leach, 12 So. 126 (La.); Hallettz.. Hallett, 34 N. E. 740 (Ind.).