case Mr justice dorm case Lord Macclesfield Eq can ab pl not a reasonable  maxim that the next of kin to who the land may descend shall not be guardian  in socage sir William dorm bart nephew of Mr justice dorm be find a lunatic in  march whereupon their late majesty king William and queen mary grant the  custody of his estate to his uncle the now Mr justice dorm who be the next  remainderman in tail of the principal part of the family estate but the person  of the lunatic be grant to another peer William afterward these grant be upon  the demise of the crown frequent renew the custody of the estate be always  grant to Mr justice dorm and that of the person of the lunatic to the other  but in truth it appear that the other person be only nominal and in trust for  Mr justice dorm who all along have the lunatic in his own custody and live  with his whole family in the lunatic house in the county of buck and it be in  proof that sir Robert Jenkinson who be the nominal committee for the person of  the lunatic declare he know nothing of the matter or how the lunatic be manage  but that the lunatic be under the conduct and in the custody of Mr justice  dorm whereupon Mr Sheldon who be the lunatic decease sister son petition that  the custody of the estate may be take from Mr justice dorm and that likewise  though custody of the person may be remove the same be now in effect in Mr  justice dorm though in the name of sir Robert Jenkinson and it have be order  that pound per annum part of the income of the lunatic estate in  Gloucestershire which be subject to a mortgage of pound shall be set apart to  pay off the mortgage and that the residue of the profit shall be apply towards  the maintenance of the lunatic and the management of his estate the lunatic  say nephew complain in his petition that this maintenance be excessive and to  the prejudice of the next of kin to who will belong what the lunatic shall  leave at his death peer William Lord chancellor I find this order make for the  commitment of the custody peer William er p of the estate to Mr justice dorm  and of the person to sir Robert Jenkinson who I take to be a nominal person  for Mr justice dorm and that the person of the lunatic have in fact be all  along with Mr justice dorm and that such allowance have be make to the judge  for the maintenance of the lunatic and management of the estate be beyond  dispute sure the maxim that the next of kin to who the land can descend be to  be guardian in socage be not ground upon reason but prevail in barbarous time  before the nation be civilize for what can be more usual now than where one  have infant child to make one brother their guardian and it seem no less  reasonable that where a man die intestate the law shall dispose of the  guardianship of his child in the same manner as the intestate will be suppose  to do have he live to make a will it be very shock to think that any brother  or uncle will commit murder upon his own brother or nephew to get his estate  but in the present case here have be the strong proof that there be not any  ground for that cruel and barbarous presumption in Mr justice dorm who for  these thirtytwo year last pass have maintain his nephew in the most tender and  careful manner and who if he can have be suppose to have any ill design upon  his nephew the lunatic may have execute they long since this experience of the  judge tenderness towards his nephew be the strong argument of his be the  proper guardian for he and as to the peer William petitioner complaint that  the maintenance be too much he seem to be take more care of himself than of  the lunatic in this case I think the improvement make of the lunatic real  estate be very commendable the lunatic may recover and then to see his estate  in good condition and plight may be great to his comfort and though he have be  so long in this unhappy condition yet a lunatic in the eye of the law be never  look upon to be desperate but always at least in a possibility of recover it  be his benefit and comfort I be to take care of where no creditor complain and  not to heap up wealth for the benefit of his administrator or next of kin  therefore I will not lessen the allowance nor alter the committee of the  person beside nobody can tell who will be the lunatic next of kin at his death  for he may live to bury all the next of kin that be so now see more of this  case post vol vide Morgan v Dillon Mod and the same case by the name of Dillon  v lady Mountcashell bro p c bro p c and ed vide etian hark   Litt b note ex  part Cockayne Ves ex part seaman Collinson on lunacy ex part Chumley Ves jun  ex part baker Ves nor will the chancellor even in favour of creditor sell  property of the lunatic which the creditor can otherwise reach so as to  deprive the lunatic of necessary maintenance ex part dike Ves ex part Hastings  Ves peer William de term S hill