
    Bolling v. Turner.
    December, 1828.
    Lunatic — Committee—Liability to Be Sued  — A Committee of a Lunatic. appointed by the Chancellor, Is a mere Commissioner of the Court, managing-the person and estate of the Lunatic, under the direction of the Chancellor, and is responsible to the Conrt as a receiver, removable in its disoretion. and not liable to be sued at Law. on claims either against the Lunatic himself, or his estate, as in the case ot a Committee appointed under the Statute.
    Samuel Turner brought Assumpsit in the Superior Court of Prince George, against Robert Bolling, committee of Mary Anne Bolling, a lunatic, to recover $919 80. There were five counts in the Declaration. The first was indebitatus assumpsit for goods, wares and merchandize sold and delivered to the lunatic before her lunacy. The second was on a quantum valebant for the goods sold and delivered to her. The.third was on a quantum meruit, for work and labor done for her. The fourth was indebitatus assumpsit, for money laid out and expended *by the Plaintiff for the use of the lunatic, for money lent and advanced to her; and for money had and received by her to the use of the Plaintiff before her lunacy. All of these four counts charged the assumpsit to be made by her before her lunacy. The fifth count was on an insimul computassent between the Defendant as committee of the lunatic, and the Plaintiff, in which the Defendant was charged to be found in arrears on account of the said lunatic in the sum claimed, and laid the assumpsit by the Defendant himself as committee. Plea, the general issue. On the trial the Jury found for the Plaintiff, subject, however, to the opinion of the Court, upon the question here stated. “The goods, &c. for which this action is brought, were furnished by the Plaintiff to the said Mary Anne Bolling, before the Defendant was appointed her committee, and were necessaries required for her support, and the preservation of her property, and the Defendant was appointed a committee for the said Mary Anne, by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, and not by any County or Corporation Court, in the mode prescribed in the Act of Assembly, and it is submitted to the Court, whether the Defendant is subject to this action. The said Mary Anne, at the time of the delivery of the goods, being in a state of mind which rendered her incapable of contracting.” The Court decided in favor of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant appealed.
    Allison, for the Appellant.
    May, and Spooner, for the Appellee.
    
      
      Ree monographic note on "Insanity" appended to Boswell v. Com., 20 Gratt. 860.
      The principal case is cited with approval in Bird v. Bird, 21 Gratt. 717; Pannill v. Calloway, 78 Va. 334.
    
   December 13.

The PRESIDENT

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This in an action of Assumpsit by the Appellee against the Appellant, as the Committee of a lunatic, appointed by *the Chancellor for goods, &c. furnished as necessaries for the support of the lunatic, and for the preservation of her property, before the appointment of the Appellant, and when the lunatic was incapable of making any contract. The error in bringing this action was, in not distinguishing it from an action against the committee of a lunatic appointed under the Statute, in a case in which the lunatic is sent to the Hospital and is treated by the Statute as civiliter mortuus, and the -committee' as an Executor, and responsible in like manner. 1 Rev. Co. ch. 109, § 6, p. 413. A committee appointed by the Chancellor, .as in this case, is a mere Commissioner of the Court, managing the person and estate of the lunatic, under the direction of the Chancellor, and having such allowances for the support of the lunatic as may be considered proper, accounting for the management of the estate as a receiver of the Court, removable iri its discretion, and is not liable to be sued on claims either against the lunatic or his estate, as in the case of a committee appointed under the Statute. A suit might have been brought against the lunatic herself for any debt incurred before the committee was appointed, and after Judgment her person might have been taken in execution, as in the case of any other debtor. During her lunacy she was incapable of making any contract, and was only liable to be sued for necessaries, though no Execution could issue against her estate, that being under the control of the Chancellor; but the Chancellor, either before or after Judgment, may direct the debt to be paid out of her estate. 13 Vessey, 590, Annonymous, and Maddock’s Ch. title “Idiot and Lunatic.”

The Judgment is therefore to be reversed. 
      
       Absent, Judge Coulter.
     