¶1It was settled in the case of Perkins, (2 John. Ch, Rep. 124,) that a committee must be appointed by this court for a non-resident lunatic, to enable him to obtain the control of property in this state; and that a commission might issue for that purpose. But as the commissioners cannot authorize the empanneling, of a jury beyond the jurisdiction of this court the commission cannot be executed out of the state. (Southcot’s case, 2 Ves. sen. 402.) The usual order directing the commission to be executed at or near the residence of the lunatic must be dispensed with - in such a case; and it may be executed in such county as will be most convenient. In this case the residence of the lunatic is near the line of this state; the commission must therefore be executed in the adjoining county, which is most convenient and nearest to her residence. The commis*175sioners must also give her due notice of the time and place of executing the commission, that she may attend if she thinks proper to do so.
2 Paige Ch. 174
In re Petit
Decided April 6, 1830
New York Court of Chancery · decided 1830-04-06
jN this case the alleged lunatic was a resident of Wilton, in the county of Fairfield and state of Connecticut. A petition was presented by her brother in law, setting forth that she was about thirty years of age, and was of unsound mind; that she was entitled to an undivided share of certain real property in this state, and also to twenty shares of the capital stock of The Newburgh and Cochecton Turnpike Company.
Decided 1830-04-06