
    Edward W. Hooper, petitioner.
    Suffolk.
    March 22, 1876.
    Devens & Lord, JJ., absent.
    The guardian of an insane person may be authorized, under the Gen. Sts. c. 109, § 22, to invest all the property of the ward in the purchase of an annuity upon his life.
    Petition by Edward W. Hooper, setting forth that he was the duly appointed guardian of Jane M. Bacon, a widow and an insane person; that her property consisted solely of money deposits to the amount of $4394.65, besides wearing apparel and similar personal effects, and was subject to certain debts; that the income of her property was wholly insufficient for her comfortable maintenance; that she had no issue living, but had two brothers and a sister said to be living at various designated places out of the Commonwealth; that the property might be more advantageously used for the ward in the purchase of an annuity than in any other way, and could in no other way he made to afford her a sufficient and certain support, and prayed for the authorization of the court, under the Gen. Sts. e. 109, § 22, for the investment of the whole of the ward’s property in an annuity on her life.
    Upon this petition, notice was ordered by mailing to the brothers and sister of the ward copies of the abstract of the petition and of the order thereon, and by publication thereof.
    Upon the hearing upon the petition, by Devens, J., he found that the notices ordered had been given; that it would be for the interest of the ward that the money should be expended in the manner prayed for in the petition; and reserved for the opinion of the full court the question whether an order to that effect could properly be made.
    
      J. G. Ropes, for the petitioner,
    cited Kendall v. May, 10 Allen, 59, 66 ; May v. May, 109 Mass. 252, 256 ; Ex parte Chumley, 1 Ves. Jr. 296 ; Ex parte Dikes, 8 Ves. 79 ; Ex parte Hastings, 14 Ves. 182 ; Ex parte Stonard, 18 Ves. 284 ; Davies v. Davies, 2 De G., M. & G. 51 ; In re Dodsworth, 10 Hare, 16 ; In re Ward, 29 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 784 ; In re Persse, 3 Molloy, 94 ; Shelford on Lunacy, 199.
    No counsel appeared to oppose the petition.
   The Court, under the Gen. Sts. c. 109, § 22, made the

Order prayed for.  