case PRODGERS versus PHRAZIER Eq can ab pl Mod show Ch can S c the custody of  a idiot can be grant to a man his executor administrator and assign but v id  post case where it be refer to a trial at law the king by his letter patent  grant to sir Alexander Phrazier the custody of one Bridgett Dennis a idiot c  by very full word habend to sir Alexander Phrazier his executor administrator  and assign during the ideotcy of the say Bridgett Dennis and now upon the  death of sir Alexander Phrazier Mr Prodgers a bedchamberman beg the custody of  the say idiot and obtain letter patent for the same it appear from the plea  that sir Alexander by his will give and bequeathe the custody and government  of the idiot and her estate to the defendant and make defendant executrix who  prove the will r l the point in this case argue by the council be whether the  custody of a idiot can by law be grant to a man his executor administrator and  assign and saint a difference be take and agree on all hand between the case  of a idiot and a lunatic that in the case of a lunatic it be only a trust in  the king and no profit by law intend he thereby as to lunatic it be express  declare by the statute de bring Reg that with regard to lunatic the king shall  provide that their land and tenement shall be safe keep without waste and  destruction and that they and their household shall live and be maintain  competent with the profit of the same and the residue shall be keep to their  use and be deliver to they when they shall come to right mind so that such  land and tenement shall be in no wise alien and the king shall take nothing to  his own use and if the party die in such estate then the residue shall be  distribute for his soul by the advice of the ordinary Edward cap the residue  be now distribute accord to the statute Lord Wenmans case p wms shower pl it  be a rule never depart from not to vary or change the property of the lunatic  so as to affect the succession to it ex part marchioness of Annandale Amb S c  bro c c note see also Awdley v Awdley post vol Oxenden v Compton bro c c Ves  jun but in the case of a idiot it be otherwise for the king by his prerogative  have a interest in the estate of the idiot and a right to the profit thereof  and to that purpose be cite the statute de prerogat king the word of the  statute in this case be that the king shall have the custody of the land of  natural fool take the profit of they without waste or destruction and shall  find they their necessary of who fee soever the land shall be hold and after  the death of such idiot he shall render it to the right heir so that such  idiot shall not alien nor their heir shall be disinherit Edward cap it appear  that though the king have not this prerogative at commonlaw yet it be give he  by some Act of parliament in the time of Edward saint vide Inst beverley case  Rep but the king have no right to the mesne profit of idiot estate till office  find beverley case ub sup but to some intent the office shall have relation to  the time of the birth Toursons case that Rep and the king have but the custody  of the idiot land though during life yet the freehold be not in the king but  in the idiot beverley case ub sup and it be urge by Mr holt that where the  king have a prerogative it be intend for the king advantage and not for the  Vernon chancery case benefit of the subject and that the king have in this  case a prerogative he cite dame hale case where a man marry a idiot and have  issue by her whereby he become entitle unto her estate during his life in his  own right yet if afterward by office she be find a idiot the king by his  prerogative shall have the land as to relation of office vide Plowd Inst b et  vide har and but note for query and remark on this head and further as to the  nature of office vide page case Rep and it be resemble to the case of a ware  where Littleton text be that the wardship of a tenant in capite shall go to  the executor but otherwise of a wardship in soccage and the reason be that in  the first case there be a profit by law intend to the guardian or committee  and a interest vest but in the other case only a trust and although estate at  commonlaw ought to have a certain commencement and a certain determination yet  there be many interest of this nature allow in law and be call making  indistinct interest as where land be extend against the heir upon the  recognizance of his ancestor the conusee be to hold until such time as the  money shall be levy and the grant of the good of a person outlaw be until the  outlawry shall be reverse and there be diverse other case of the like nature  and Mr sergeant Maynard put this case where the king grant the custody of a  ware how day in shades of dead our men to stand out that be until such time as  livery shall be sue and it be say by Mr Wallop that this be only a private  minute trust and none of the great trust as be such as concern the  administration of justice or the king revenue and yet in a late case in the  exchequer between squire and it be adjudge that the office of a teller of the  exchequer may be grant to one his executor administrator and assign and it be  say by sir Francis winnington and Mr pollexfen that although there have not be  those word in the present grant of executor administrator and assign yet the  king have grant his interest Interrog  the say Bridgett Dennis shall continue  a idiot it shall have go to the executor of the grantee and it be observe that  the statute of the of h concern the court of Vernon chancery case ware and  livery rank idiot and ware in the same degree and likewise that in Fitzherbert  n b and the wardship of a infant be call the custody of a infant and that the  word be synonymous the one from the French and the other from the Latin and by  the plaintiff counsel it be insist that though it be true where there be a  profit and interest the same may be transfer and grant over yet this be a  interest so link and couple with the trust of the care and maintenance of the  idiot which the law repose in the king as in the safe hand that it can be  grant over otherwise than so as to be determinable at the king pleasure to  which it be reply that there be no danger of a breach of trust because it be  for the party benefit to preserve and maintain the idiot and whereas it be  Vernon chancery case er p object that this interest will not be asset in the  hand of a executor it be reply by Mr sergeant Maynard that that be petitio  beginning if it be a profit and a interest as without doubt it be by  consequence it must be asset the Lord chancellor say that he do not take the  case of a ware and a idiot to be at all parallel case for the king have the  one as a trust though couple with a interest and the other pure as a interest  service and duty owe to he and come to the king in point of tenure and  therefore the king may grant the custody of a ware cum to fall upon but there  can be no such grant of the custody of a idiot but the king can grant the  custody of the land of a idiot to a person his heir and executor Holmes case  dyer Frances case more pl as well those which he have by purchase as those  which he have as heir by the commonlaw beverley case Rep vide also judgement  on this case at law Mod p as to the nature and extent of the king grant of the  custody of the person and land of the idiot to the Lord chancellor it appear  that the power of the chancellor in relation to idiot as well as lunatic be by  virtue of a sign manual of the king upon his the chancellor come to the great  seal and countersign by the two secretary of state empower he to take care of  such person in right of the crown and to make grant from time to time of the  idiot or lunatic estate and this be a beneficial thing in case of ideocy  because the king can not only give the custody of idiot but the rend and  profit of idiot land to person corporation of Burford v Lenthall and other atk  Sheldon v fortescue p win note a in matter of heli a lunatic march atk Oxenden  v Compton Ves jun but after the custody be grant the great seal act in all  matter relative to a lunatic not under the sign manual but by virtue of its  general power as keeper of the king conscience ex part Grimstone ambler but he  say if the emolument and advantage that by law be give to the king in case of  a idiot can be separate from the trust then clear it may be transfer but this  be a case of great consequence and prim impression for no one can show any  such grant from the time of the make of the Vernon chancery case stat de  prerogat king until this day and it shall be well consider what inconveniency  may arise in allow of grant of this nature for suppose the grantee make a  infant executor or die intestate what shall then become of the custody of the  idiot but he say there be that in this case that will make a end of it for he  have former see the inquisition upon which both these grant be find and it be  thereby find that Bridgett Dennis have be a idiot for eight year last pass  which be utter a void inquisition for a idiot must be find to be so a  nativitate vide   light a otherwise it be not a idiot but a lunatic only and  both the letter patent as well that to sir Alexander Phrazier as this latter  to the plaintiff Prodgers be find upon this inquisition be both void and my  lady Phrazier have best have a care lest she shall be call to a account for  the profit already receive and advice the party to consider of it and when  they come next to produce the inquisition and if it can be that they will end  the matter by compromise at another day the case of vain and bier quere veil v  prior hard in the exchequer be cite where it be resolve that the office of the  registership of policy of assurance may be grant for year against the opinion  in sir George reynolds case sir George Reynels case Rep et vide Jones v clerk  hard Dennis v love ibidem and squib case in the exchequer cite where it be  resolve that the grant of a teller of the exchequer to a man and his assign be  a good grant but the Lord chancellor rely much upon it that there never be any  precedent of the custody of a idiot grant to a man his executor administrator  and assign as this case be and he say what never be never ought to be and he  say that be a good reason give by Littleton on the stat of marlebridge in this  case the letter patent be plead but Lord chancellor say the plea be  insufficient though the inquisition have be good and overrule accord and then  the decree proceed as follow but the grant to the plaintiff be on the same  inquisition as the grant to the defendant his lordship for the settle the  matter as to the custody of the say mrs Dennis and her estate whether a idiot  or a lunatic do order that she be bring before his lordship by the defendant  within four day after notice to be give to her of this order to the end that  she the idiot may be inspect that the court may dispose of her in future as  they shall think fit Reg lib b Fol Vernon chancery case er p