case in the lunacy of Mr roberts march SC ante not only the lunatic but the  heir of the lunatic be bind upon the traverse of the inquisition vide ex part  Grimstone Amb this matter come on before the court upon exception to the  master report which approve of the conveyance of the estate in barbados to sir  Stephen Anderson from doctor Finny pursuant to Lord chancellor order before  the last order be carry into execution Robert die the conveyance be by lease  and release to such use as subsist under the will of Mr roberts father in  which sir Stephen Anderson be the last remainderman atkins er p exception be  take by the heir at law of Mr Robert and the most material be that the  conveyance ought to have be make to Henry Robert the lunatic in fee Mr Noel  for the exceptant the heir at law of Mr Robert the intent of these exception  be to leave the heir at law at liberty without any previous order of the court  to come to a judicial determination of this point either by traverse the  inquisition or in any other manner whether he be entitle to the fee or whether  sir Stephen Anderson be entitle as last remainderman under the will of Mr  roberts father he argue that this court will not consider the inquisition as a  absolute determination of the right of inheritance of the lunatic estate and  though he can not cite a precedent yet submit it upon general rule of reason  and justice that and heir at law may traverse a inquisition and that the court  will not bind he down without a judicial determination of the point atkins  that if doctor Finny can not have be bind by the inquisition unless he have  agree previous to it to be bind much more the heir at law who have not enter  into any such agreement can be bind he cite sir geoffrey palmer attorney  general on the behalf of Jerome smith against sir Robert Packhurst Charles Cas  in all judgement against the ancestor the heir have the benefit of a writ of  error or appeal then why shall he be bar here when this be a proceed only find  upon f e prerogative of the crown it be but a limit insanity find by the jury  that Mr Robert be not of capacity sufficient to manage his own affair a great  inconvenience will follow if the property of person shall be bind in this  summary way by order of this court and will be the first precedent of this  kind and all that be ask be to have a opportunity of try the fact of the  lunacy Mr Wilbraham counsel of the same side say we do not desire a immediate  conveyance to the exceptant the heir at law but only to some officer of the  court to the use of such person as may hereafter turn out to be entitle by the  saint de Prrogat king Edward c it be a sort of office to entitle the king to  lie his hand upon the person and estate of a lunatic and though the king can  be proper call a trustee vide pen v Lord Baltimore Ves yet in this case he be  quasi a trustee for the lunatic benefit only for it be there say the king  shall take nothing to his own use there be nothing in this inquisition that  can affect the right of a lunatic to the estate vide guttin versus brown  Charles Cas that a fine shall not work further than the court intend it the  same rule will hold as to the order make in this case as to the order be  conclusive consider first how it will be in point of law this concern freehold  if a man have a judgement against he on demurrer he be bar in a personal  action and can only have a taint or writ of error but otherwise in freehold  vide   b he can have no attaint here because it be in the case of the crown  Leon anon atkins the commonlaw will not allow a man to be bar of his freehold  till the mere right have be try in the case of Addison versus Dawson June as  appear by the register book for the note in Vernon report vol be imperfect it  be say that though a person be find a lunatic with a retrospect of several  year back yet if any conveyance be execute by a lunatic after this time they  shall not be set aside as to good use and yet they be look upon as bad and the  effect of a recovery bad where the use be bad Lord chancellor there be a fine  in that case and therefore the lunatic be bind as it must be suppose when he  be examine with regard to the fine by the judge that he be capable of levy Mr  attorney general for the remainderman under the will of Mr roberts father  first whether the exceptant have any right as heir at law he can claim it only  as heir at law upon the supposition that Mr Robert be seize in fee at the time  of b be death he can not be seize in fee at the time of his death and the only  reason that have be urge to show he be be that the settlement make by Mr  Robert in have bar the remainder to sir Stephen Anderson atkins er p the heir  can have no legal right for either Mr Robert be or be not a lunatic if he be  the deed execute by he in be no bar of the remainderman if he be not doctor  Finny have the whole inheritance and there be no pretence of right in the heir  at law the proceed in this lunacy be bind upon the heir at law by the statute  of Edward c S there be a liberty to traverse but when that liberty have be  once take there be a end of it for the lunatic can traverse it again Mr Robert  can never have traverse it by say he be not a lunatic at the time the jury  have find he one vide beverley case   b it have be final determine and there  be no way of try it now and can be controvert over again by the heir at law  atkins Mr solicitor general of the same side the general question be upon the  order make in December the ground of the order be not that doctor Finny real  can convey any thing but only to preclude he from ever try it over again that  Henry Robert be a lunatic at the time of execute the deed in in answer to Mr  wilbraham observation that a deed of his may be good to good use and bad to  bad he cite leech versus Thomson Mod and the same in shower parliament Cas the  single question be whether a deed execute by a lunatic be void or voidable  judge have be of opinion it be absolute void and not voidable only if the deed  be so far a void act that it do not grant to doctor Finny it do not bar a  estatetail for if he be a lunatic at that time there be no deed at all Mr  clerk of the same side cite Manfields case   where there be a fine by a idiot  and resolve in the court of ware that forasmuch as he be enable by the fine as  a principal he shall not be disable to limit the use which be but as accessary  and notwithstanding Lord dyer say that the judge who take the fine be never  worthy to take another and although the monstrous deformity and ideocy of  Bashley who acknowledge the fine be apparent and visible to the judge of the  common plea and the juror to who he be send out of the court of ware yet they  cause a juror to be withdraw by consent of party and hold the fine to be good  Mr Noel in reply say he apprehend the court will not put such a construction  upon their order make on doctor Finny as to conclude the right between sir  Stephen Anderson and the heir at law of Mr Robert Lord chancellor lane entry  be the only traverse of a lunacy in print and there be express the traverse of  a person suppose to be a lunatic at the time I think I may decide on some sure  and certain principle on this exception without prejudice any person right  atkins the question be whether I shall leave doctor Finny a power of dispute  it if he think fit by reason of his not have do a act to extinguish his right  the exception be mistake for the course of this proceed be to show whether Mr  Robert be a lunatic or not and whether doctor Finny have any right to the  estate for to suppose that deed be void and yet in force at the same time will  be inconsistent this be the intent of the order to prevent the try the lunacy  over again in barbados it do not imply the court admit doctor Finny to have a  right I be of opinion not only the lunatic but the heir of the lunatic be bind  upon the traverse of the inquisition or it will have be a very fruitless act  of parliament a trial by inspection be the proper trial by the Lord chancellor  as to his person when there have be a solemn trial in the lifetime of a  lunatic who be bind himself to say that after his death when he can appear in  proper person and can be inspect by the jury it shall still be open to a  traverse by the heir at law carry a great absurdity with it the alienee of a  lunatic may traverse a inquisition as well as the lunatic himself suppose both  the lunatic and the alienee traverse and he be find a lunatic at the time of  the alienation be not the alienee bind he certain be the alienee it be say  shall be bind because he be a party to the suit but the heir at law shall not  which will be a manifest injustice and still strong in the case of ideocy  where the crown grant the custody and profit of his estate during his life the  idiot die and accord to the doctrine lie down by counsel the heir at law  atkins er p may come in and traverse the ideocy shall the executor of a idiot  have a account against the grantee for the profit incur during the grant from  the crown No sure the lunatic it be say will not be bind because when he  recover his sense he may traverse it certain he can not though I have say all  this upon the general point that the heir at law be bind yet if Mr Robert be  real a lunatic at the time of the deed it be absolute void if void so as not  to pass the estate it be equal void so as not to bar the entail atkins but  suppose a common recovery may have a distinct operation from the deed to lead  the use for a common recovery will bar the entail though there be no deed to  lead the use because it be in respect of the satisfaction of estate in value  which create the bar yet if such a deed as this do not pass the estate then  the deed can have no operation as a recovery of a estate in satisfaction here  it be quite a distinct thing from the common recovery for it all depend upon a  letter of attorney execute by the lunatic which be a deed and therefore every  thing do in pursuance of it be void and this be determine in the case of  Wentworth versus Cholmley in the court of common plea Michaelmas term SC Ves  cite but I will suppose Robert be not a lunatic and that on a future bill  bring here Robert shall be find not to be a lunatic but a weak man and the  deed obtain by fraud or imposition after the death of Mr Robert the court must  take it exact in the same light as it stand before his conveyance if doctor  Finny gain no right by this deed he can convey nothing to the trustee under  the order of this court therefore the heir at law be not hurt but suppose the  entail be bar those use be not exist and no prejudice can arise from the  conveyance direct by the master his lordship overrule the exception but not so  as to prevent any right the heir at law may appear to have on trial at law