case SERGISON and mary his wife against Sealey and other in chancery  Michaelmas term Geo if a father previous to his be find a lunatic make a  purchase of a estate with the consent and approbation of his only son the  purchase be good and the money lie out therein shall not be consider as  personal estate S c atk Mr Pitt be a elderly gentleman and seize with a palsy  be so far affect as to lose the use of his foot and limb and his speech be so  far injure that he be scarce able to pronounce anything more than aye and no  and at last his memory be so far impair that he can only answer to very short  question for if the proposition be of any length he can not retain it his son  be entitle to both his real and personal estate and in a commodious purchase  offer he make proposal to his father to buy it who upon the description of it  agree to it and road out along with his son and steward to view it upon which  a conveyance be make to the old gentleman and the purchasemoney be a thousand  pound he draw a order upon his banker for the payment of it in a commission of  lunacy issue against he and the juror by the inquisition find that old Mr Pitt  be a lunatic without lucid interval at that time and have be so for eight year  before which be some year precedent to the purchase the son die in the  lifetime of Mr Pitt his father and it now become a question between Mr Pitt  heir at law and his personal modern report er p representative whether this  purchase shall not be consider as personal estate it be make by a lunatic it  be argue in favour of the personal representative that a lunatic not have  discretion to manage his property this court will not suffer he to alter the  nature of it so as to change real into personal or personal into real estate a  see ex part Ludlow atk ex part Annandale Amb ex part Grimstone Amb ex part  Bromfield brown Ch Rep a and though he be capable of a grant of land to he by  law yet this court notwithstanding will consider such purchase as personal  estate in indulgence to his personal representative that a infant be under the  modern report same incapacity nor will this court suffer the trustee of a  infant to do a act to alter the course of succession or dissent as to lie out  money in land not if the infant have ever so much or the purchase be ever so  commodious much more this court will not suffer the money of a lunatic to be  invest in land to transfer the succession from the executor to the heir for if  the court be to permit this it will put it in the power of trustee to dispose  of infant or lunatic estate as they please as in relation to personal and real  representative Hardwicke Lord chancellor the general question in this case be  whether here be sufficient ground in a court of equity to set aside a purchase  and consider land as personal estate for take Mr Pitt to be a lunatic or non  compos chin which perhaps be a better term for want of will he be capable of  take a grant of the real estate a see   light b Perkins S a which have descend  to the plaintiff and as it be vest in point of law as real estate the question  be whether the purchase may be set aside in equity so as to be esteem a  personalty this arise upon two point the first whether there be sufficient  evidence to induce the court to believe that at the time of make the purchase  this gentleman be a lunatic the second whether this court be to consider it as  personal estate if he be one in relation to the evidence of lunacy I be of  opinion that there be not sufficient evidence that he be at that time absolute  a lunatic the only thing that have be read to it be the inquisition which find  he to be a lunatic without lucid interval at the time of issue the commission  in and for eight year before the jury have go too far in find he a lunatic for  so long back they may perhaps with reason have find he incapable of manage his  affair with exactness as be ought and he not a lunatic which I believe to be  the case for this arise from a indisposition by the palsy and there have be  often person strike with a apoplexy which have afterward turn to a confirm  palsy at first it may but just affect the motion of his muscle as in this case  it take away the use of his hand and foot and leave he very little power of  his tongue but in course of time the patient by the weight and advance of his  distemper may become quite non compos which I believe to be the case of Mr  Pitt for it be possible be may be a lunatic at the time of the inquisition and  capable before the eight year overreach the time of the purchase but a  inquisition be not conclusive evidence for it may be deny and traverse nay it  be not conclusive to the point of time in which it be find much less be it to  a retrospect there have be many instance wherein jury have find a man a  lunatic for many year before the inquisition and notwithstanding that evidence  have be give to another jury upon trial to controvert such former inquisition  and the jury have find he not to be a lunatic what confirm modern report I  that this retrospect of the inquisition be false be that in which be but two  year before the issue of the commission this gentleman live at the head of his  family have the management of his estate in his own hand with the assistance  of his son and his steward to see it and draw a order upon his banker to pay  the purchasemoney and it be not reasonable to think that the son who be  entitle both to his real and personal estate will have make all this parade if  his father have be a lunatic as to Mr Pitt be capable of answer aye and no  there have be a case of very great consequence not long ago determine that a  man who can do so may pass his estate by will therefore as the evidence stand  I think he capable of make such a purchase and I shall not send it to a trial  at law but I do not rely sole on the opinion that Mr Pitt be not non compos  for modern report er p suppose he to have be non compos at the time yet there  will not be sufficient ground to change his real estate into personal because  there be great difference between this case at the time of the transaction and  the case of a lunatic for this gentleman live at the head of his family with  his son to assist he who be entitle to the possession of his father both real  and personal the act itself be a very reasonable one and no objection against  it by the person who claim to have it decree as personal estate he be a  gentleman of a very large personalty for the jury find he to be worth  thirtyseven thousand pound he have be a Spanish merchant in town and afterward  retire into somersetshire the case of infant be as have be argue that their  personal estate shall not be convert into real estate by their guardian a see  Tullit v Tullit Amb inwood v twine Amb a nor will this court suffer it if  application be make to it for that purpose unless with this reserve that it  shall be consider as personal estate if he die before twentyone but that be  different from the present for in that the estate leave by the parent be never  in the power or management of the infant himself or of the guardian and  therefore to be sure neither of they ought to take upon they such change but  here Mr Pitt have have a power over the estate for many year and though  afterward he become weak by a palsy yet the family continue still to go on in  the same manner and the old gentleman assist in his affair by his son and  steward and a reasonable act be do and if the court be to overhaul these thing  so as to consider a real estate as personal it will be very mischievous  suppose Mr Pitt have make lease for life will the court have set they aside  though a jury afterward think fit to find he a lunatic for many year back and  that improper too compare the present case with that of lunatic in the care of  this court there wheresoever a account be to be take of a lunatic estate the  order be to have those person modern report to attend who be at that time  entitle to his real or personal estate if the account be take and the party  who be then entitle die the person who come next to be entitle though they be  not present at the account shall be conclude by it nay further if a reasonable  purchase offer itself for a lunatic and will serve to meliorate his fortune if  there have be no objection by the party entitle but they have consent to have  the money invest in land this purchase will be good and bind all future person  who shall be entitle to the personal estate of the lunatic though they be not  themselves consent to such purchase which be the present case for the son who  be then entitle both to realty and personalty be assent and the present  claimant of the personal be bind as much in this case as the former before  mention therefore there be no ground to vary this purchase