In regard to these persons, the appointment of a guardian, and the depriving them of all power over their own property, is generally put on the ground of a danger that they may become chargeable to the town or other body corporate who will be bound to support them if they become paupers. The application must come, therefore, from the authorities of such town; and set forth that the party, by drinking, gaming, or other debauchery, is so spending and wasting his means as to be in danger of becoming chargeable. Here also there is to be a judicial inquiry into the facts, after due notice to the alleged spendthrift; and upon a finding of the facts in accordance with the petition, a guardian is appointed as before, and after such appointment all contracts of the spendthrift, except for necessaries, are void. Where a provision is made for recording such complaint and petition in a public registry, no valid contract, except for necessaries, can be made by the spendthrift, after such record, provided a guardian be subsequently appointed on the petition. (o)1 And it has been

129, 1 Fonbl. Eq. (5th ed.) 66; Lewis v Pead, 1 Ves. Jr. 19. See Marmon v. Marmon, 47 Ia. 121.

(n) Converse v. Converse, 21 Vt. 168.

(o) It was held in Smith v. Spooner, 3

Pick. 229, that the Massachusetts statute

1 A spendthrift is liable for goods purchased before the appointment of a guardian though not delivered till after his appointment. Myer v. Tighe, 151 Mass. 354.

held that the acknowledgment or new promise of a spendthrift under guardianship is not sufficient to take a former promise out of the Statute of Limitations. (p)