482 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. brother. The surplus income was ;^2300. The lunatic had a father, mother, and sister in comparatively reduced circumstances, and two brothers who " had increasing families with incomes of about ^230 each." Lord Lyndhurst had allowed .^350 to the father,
- ^350 to the next brother, ^100 to the younger brother, and on the
death of the father had, it appears somewhat obscurely, ordered the Master to divide the father's share between the brothers. Cottenham confirmed the Master's report with reluctance, disap- proving of the extent to which the practice had been carried. A sum of £^0% for permanent improvements he disallowed. " If," said he, " the remainder-man had been the son of the lunatic there might have been some ground for it; but I cannot sanction pay- ments . . . which are to benefit his brother." The case illustrates more than is usual the reluctance with which the court acts. The rule to-day would seem to be more liberal. Re Sparrow, infra. 1863. In re Croft, 32 L. J. (Ch.) 481. This was a petition of a gentleman residing out of the jurisdic- tion of the court, the first cousin and one of the two only next of kin of the lunatic praying for an allowance out of the lunatic's surplus income. The lunatic had i^i 300 per annum; the petitioner was in great distress. Knight Bruce, and Turner, L. JJ., on the authority of the cases in Meriv. & Myl. & Craig, granted the petition. Knight Bruce was inclined to decide the case on its own peculiar circumstances, without reference to authority and without making any precedent.
- {^ioo per annum was allowed to the petitioner, but the allowance
was treated as an advancement. 1878. Re Bryce, 4 Victoria (Australian) L. R. Equity, in. This case is obscurely reported, neither the lunatic's means nor those of the petitioner, his wife, being stated. There was a fund in court of ;^2i63, not the lunatic's whole property, out of the corpus of which the petitioner desired /"250 with which to go into the millinery business. Molesworth, J., refused the request, but gave costs out of the fund. The lunatic when sane had allowed his wife £l per week, and that allowance was continued. 1880. Re Harris, 49 L. J. N. S. (Ch.) 327. This was a petition under the Lunatic Asylum Act, 1853, by the managers of a county lunatic asylum for the payment out of the property of the lunatic in court of arrears of maintenance since 1850. It was opposed. Cotton, L. J., held (i) that this was
