Knipe v Palmer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 95 E.R. 725
IN THE KING'S COURTS AT WESTMINSTER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
knipe versus palmer. C. B. Covenant upon a lease made by the committee of a lunatic', by plaintiff as the committee will not lie, for a committee cannot make such leaae at law. Action of covenant brought by the plaintiff as committee of one John Wright a lunatic, upon covenants in a lease made by the plaintiff as committee in his own name, and assigns several breaches; the defendant pleads nil habuit in tenementis; * By the reporter. 726 TRINITY TERM, 33 AND 34 GEO. II. 1760 2 WIIS. K. B. 131. the plaintiff replies the commission of lunacy and proceedings thereupon, demurrer and joinder. Serjeant Poole for the defendant insisted, that even the King himself, by his prerogative, cannot take the profits of a lunatic's estate to his own use, as was resolved in Frances's case, Moor 4, where it was found by office that William Frances was a lunatic, wherefore the King seized his lauds and his body; and the custody of his person and his lands was committed to one Holmes for so long a time as he should be a lunatic, to take the profits to his own use, rendering rent, &c. And in trespass Holmes prayed the aid of the King et non allocatur, because the patent is void, for the King cannot grant the lands of a lunatic to another to take the profits to his own use, because the King himself is not entitled to them, otherwise than to support the person of the lunatic, his issue, wife, and family, and to give the surplusage to the lunatic when he recovers his memory; but otherwise it is of an idiot, for the King there shall have the profits to his own use, making allowance to the idiot for his keeping. From hence it is clear a committee of a lunatic cannot make a lease of the lunatic's estate; and so is 1 Vern. 262, Foster v. Merchant. And in Blewit's case, Ley. 47, it was resolved by Lord Hobart and Baron Tanfield, that the committees of a lunatic cannot grant any copyhold estate, for that they themselves by law have no [131] estate in the manor of the lunatic, nor are lords thereof for the time being, but that the lunatic by his steward may grant copyhold estates. And in Hutt. 16, Drury v. Finch, the opinion of the Court was, that the committee of a lunatic was but aa a bailiff, and hath no interest, but for the profit and benefit of the lunatic, aud is as his servant; and it is contrary to the nature of the committee's authority to have an action...
To continue reading
Request your trial