to be Re-heard before the Lord Keeper Bridgman who declared He saw no cause to alter the said former Decree and so confirmed it Brabant contra Perne 21 Car. 2. fo 146 344. DEpositions of Witnesses under the Hand of a Six-Clerk then in a Cause between Butt and Perne about Thirty years since the Plaintiff in this Cause prayed the same might be recorded the Record of the Original Depositions in that Cause being lost But the Defendant Pernes's Counsel insisted Copies of Depositions not to be recorded or exemplified it would be of dangerous consequence and president to suffer Copies of Depositions to be Recorded and used as Evidence in case of Title of Land there being no Cause in Court or parties to the said former Suit there being since the dismission of the said former Suit two Trials brought by the said Butt concerning the said things in question upon both which two Nonsuits passed against the said Butts Title the Witnesses which were examined in this Court being all then living and two Verdicts upon full Evidence on both sides and one other Verdict since 1664. hath been found for the Defendant's Title against the now Plaintiffs Title and some of the Witnesses at the said Trial have sworn otherwise than is expressed in those Copies of the Depositions which the Plaintiff would have now recorded and exemplified This Court would not allow the said Copies of the Depositions to be recorded or exemplified but they being before Ordered so to be by the Master of the Rolls it is Ordered they shall be vacated and made void and cancelled and taken off the File Alexander contra Alexander 21 Car. 2 fo 324. THe Suit is Assets to discover the Estate of Richard Alexander deceased which is come to the Defendants hands to satisfy a debt of 300 l. due to the Plaintiff from the said Richard Alexander The Defendant insisted that the Plaintiff ought not to have Relief in this Court in regard the Assets in the Defendants hands were legal Assets and nothing appeared but that the Plaintiff had her proper remedy at Law having not proved any thing more to be in the Defendants hands than was confessed in the Defendant's Answer But the Plaintiff insisted Bill to discover Affets That this Court hath directed Accounts in cases of this nature to avoid circuity of Action and further charge and trouble of Suits and that this Court being possest of the Cause and the parties at Issue on Proofs the same was as proper for this Court as at Common Law This Court ordered Presidents to be searched where this Court hath directed Accounts and given Relief in this Case and the Cause coming to be heard on the Presidents and Merits thereof and the Plaintiffs insisted that there is sufficient Assets of the said Richard Alexander come to the Defendants hands to satisfie the Plaintiffs debt with Overplus This Court decreed the Defendant to come to an Account for the Estate of one Blackhall unadministred Yate contra Hooke 21 Car. 2. fo 939. THat John Hele on the 23d Dec. 1654. Mortgage by demise and re-demise for 2000 l. mortgaged Longs Court and other Lands to Jasper Edwards his Executors Administrators and Assigns for 99 years and the said Edwards on the 25th of Dec. 1654. re-demised the same to the said John Hele for 98 years at a Pepper Corn Rent on Condition That if the said John Hele his Heirs Executors Administrators and Assigns did not pay to the said Jasper Edwards his Executors Administrators and Assigns 2150 l. at a certain day therein mentioned that then the said Re-demise to be void and Covenanted for him his Heirs Executors and Administrators to pay the same accordingly and in Hillary Term 1654. the said John Hele acknowledged a Judgment of 4000 l. to the said Jasper Edwards for the performance of the Covenants in the said Demise and Re-demise and after in 1656. the said John Hele for 500 l. mortgaged the said premisses to Joseph Jackson his Executors Administrators and Assigns reciting the said Mortgage to Jasper Edwards to have and to hold the said premisses to the said Joseph Jackson his Executors Administrators and Assigns for the residue of the said term demised to the said Jasper Edwards and to hold the Reversion to the said Joseph Jackson his Heirs and Assigns for the use of the said Joseph Jackson his Heirs and Assigns for ever on Condition That if the said John Hele his Executors c. paid to the said Jackson his Executors c. 515 l. in June next following then the said Deed of Mortgage to be void and the said John Hele to Re-enter as in his former Estate and the said John Hele Covenanted with the said Jackson his Heirs c. to pay the said 515 l. and for further confirmation granted to the said Jackson all his Equity of Redemption and afterwards the said Edwards and Hele for 2000 l. paid by Jackson to the said Edwards the said Edwards and Hele assigned the said premisses to Jackson with Condition or Proviso That if the said Hele his Heirs or Executors should pay to the said Jackson his Executors c. 2060 l. then the said demise from Hele to Edwards to be void and afterwards in 1657. Edwards assigned the said Judgment of 4000 l. to the said Jackson his Executors c. and the said Hele in 1660. died leaving the said Defendant Sir Thomas Hooke his Nephew and Heir And the said Jackson having made his Will and devised to his Daughter Sarah Wife of the Defendant Alford 2000 l. and to the said Joseph Jackson his Son 2000 l. with his Lands Tenements c. and to the Heirs of his Body and for want of Issue then the one half of his Lands so given to his Daughter Ann Yate and the other half to his Daughter Earle and the Issue of their Bodies equally and that in case his personal Estate fell short then every Legatee to abate in proportion to make it up the one half and the other half his Son Joseph should make good out of what he had bequeathed to him and made the Defendants Yate Earle and Aldworth Executors and if his Estate should amount to more than he had bestowed then that the said Joseph and Sarah should have the one half of it and his Son Yate and his Wife and his Son Earle and his Wife and what Child he should have living at his decease the other half Afterwards the said Joseph Jackson having in his Account accompted the said Mortgage Mony as part of his personal Estate in 1661 died leaving the said Joseph Jackson his Heir that no Entry had been made either by the Testator in his life time or by the said Joseph his Son and Heir upon the said mortgaged premisses but the said John Hele and Sir Thomas Hooke had received all the Rents and Profits So as the Question was Whether the said Mortgage Moneys are due and payable to the Heir or Executor
Answer acknowledged the said Debt This Court declared that the said Debt of 400 l. and Costs ought to be paid and Ordered the same accordingly and that the same be paid by Phillip Innelt Esq who purchased the premises liable thereto Hodkin contra Blackman al' 26 Car. 2. fo 773. THe Bill is to discover the Estate of the Intestate Maurice Blackman which came to the Hands of Elizabeth his Relict and to make the same liable to the satisfaction of a Debt of 300 l. lent to the said Intestate for Security whereof the said Intestate gave a Penal Security of 1000 l. The Defendant Elizabeth the Administratrix of the said Intestate insists Agreement to Settle 100 l. in Money Goods or Lands upon Marriage for 500 l. Portion 200 l. of the said 500 l. not paid she hath no Assets to Satisfie the Plaintiffs Demands for that in 1665. the Intestate Blackman her late Husband before Marriage with her and her Father Doctor Argoll came to this Agreement viz. that her said Father should give with her in Marriage to the said Blackman 500 l. and in consideration thereof and of such Marriage the said Blackman should enter into one Obligation to the said Doctor Argoll of 3000 l. Bond of 3000 l. to perform the said Agreement and Judgment thereupon pleaded in Bar of other Debts and Goods penalty Conditioned for the Setling of 1500 l. upon the said Defendant Elizabeth and her Heirs in Monies Lands or otherwise within one Month after the Marriage that accordingly the said Blackman in August 1665. entred into such Bond and the said Marriage was had and the said Blackman received 300 l. of the Portion and the remaining 200 l. was in the Hands of the Defendants Serjant Brampston that the said Blackman never made such Provision for the said Defendant Elizabeth and her Children as by the Condition of the said Bond he was to do and the Defendant Mary after the Death of Doctor Argoll her Father whose Executrrix she is finding the said 3000 l. uncancelled and the Condition thereof not performed did in August before the time of putting the Defendant Elizabeth's Answer commence an Action of Debt against the said Defendant Elizabeth as Admininistratrrix to Blackman her late Husband and recovered a Judgment thereon for 3000 l. Debt upon the Bond. But the Plaintiff insists that the remaining 200 l. in Serjant Brampstons Hands which is part of the said Elizabeth's Portion ought to be applyed to Satisfie the Plaintiffs Debt as far as the same will go and what the same falls short of the rest of the Estate ought to supply This Court declared they saw no colour of Cause to give the said Plaintiff any Relief against the said 3000 l. Bond and Judgment thereon had other than against the Penalty and therefore the said Defendant ought to be first satisfied her said 1500 l. out of the Personal Estate of the said Blackman and Decreed the same accordingly Mosely contra Mosely 27 Car. 2. fo 521. THe Defendant claims several things devised to her in specie by the Will of Sir Edward Mosely Clause in a Will that if any Legatee should hinder or oppose the Execution of the Will then such person should lose the Legacy bequeathed A Suit for the Legacy no forfeiture and the Plaintiff would bar her claim and right for the whole by a particular Clause in the Will viz. That if any Legatee should hinder or oppose the Execution of his Will then such person should lose the Legacy bequeathed This Court as to the Clause of Forfeiture in the Will which the Plaintiff would have the benefit of by reason of the Defendants contesting and opposing of the Execution of it declared its Opinion to be That no advantage ought to be taken thereof but that the Defendant ought to have her specifick Legacies bequeathed by the Will The Court also declared their Opinion of the Rent demanded by the Defendant of 880 l. that notwithstanding the Defendants opposition of the Will the said Rent was not forfeited or suspended nor ought in equity to be so deemed and ordered the Defendants demand thereof to stand good and be allowed as a good demand Plummer contra Stamford 27 Car. 2. fo 74. THat Edward Stamford entred into a Recognizance of 800 l. An Ancient Recognizance not set aside to let in a Mortgage to John Stamford his Brother in 22 Car. the Plaintiff having a Mortgage on Edward Stamfords Estate and in respect of the Antiquity of the said Recognizance would have it set aside presuming the mony to be satisfied that the Plaintiff may come in with his Mortgage This Court would not relive the Plaintiff against the Recognizance Twiford contra Warcup 27 Car. 2. fo 749. THe Plaintiff and Defendant entred into Articles for Purchase of the Lands in question Articles Conveyance by which Articles the Plaintiff Covenanted That the said Lands did fully and compleatly contain the quantities of Acres in a particular to the said Articles annexed and in pursuance of the said Articles and particular a Conveyance was Executed to the Defendant Now the Defendant insists That the Plaintiff hath not performed the Covenant in the said Articles for that the Lands are short of what the particular mentions them to be and insists they ought to be made good by the Plaintiff This Court on reading the Articles particular and Conveyance declared that altho' the Covenant in the Articles were that the Lands did full and compleatly contain the quantities in the Schedule yet in that Schedule and likewise in the Conveyance it is mentioned to contain so many Acres by Estimation and if there were 4 or 5 Acres more the Plaintiff cannot have them back again so on the other side if less the Defendant must take it according to the Conveyance and that the Articles being only a security for a Conveyance and the Defendant having afterwards taken a Conveyance No resorting back to a defect in Articles after a Conveyance thereupon executed the Defendant shall not resort to the Articles or to any particular or to any Averment or Communication after the Conveyances Executed which ought not to be admitted against the Deed and therefore saw no Cause to make any allowance for defect of Acres Newton contra Langham 27 Car. 2. fo 563. THe Plaintiff having an Adventure of 1700 l. Adventure in the East-India Company Mortgaged redeemable in the East-India Company Mortgaged the same 15 years since to Sir William Vincent who died and made the Defendant Executor who hath possessed the said 1700 l. Adventure and refuse to reassign the same to the Plaintiff the mony being paid for which it was a Security The Defendant insists That the said Adventure is not redeemable it being contingent and hazardous and cost much mony to insure and 14 years since it was assigned from Hand to Hand by a Decre for the Assignment to the Defendants Testatrix This Court declared That notwithstanding
Assigns during the Lives of the two Defendants Barnaby Robert and Nicholas Love Sons of Dr. Nicholas Love and to the survivor of them in Trust for the said Dr. Love And the said Gilbert Searle in July 17 Jac. demised the said premisses to the said Dr. Nicholas Love for 99 years if the said Nicholas and the Defendants Barnaby and Robert Love the Sons or any of them should so long live and the said Dr. Love had the Original Lease made by the Dean and Chapter delivered to him by the said Searle and afterwards the premisses by mean Conveyances came to Nich. Love the Son who claimed the same absolutely to himself during the said Term and was the reputed Owner thereof And in the late Usurping Times the said Nicholas the Son had the premisses confirmed to him and the said Defendants never pretended any Right possibility or Executory Estate in the said premisses after the death of the said Nicholas the Son And the said Nicholas the Son by Act of Parliament declared forfeited his Estate to His Majesty upon account of Treason and His Majesty granted the premisses to the Duke of York and his Heirs and he 18 Car. 2. granted the premisses and all the Writings to the Plaintiffs their Executors Administrators and Assigns during the residue of the term The Defendants insist That the said Dr. Love the Plaintiffs Father by his Will 15 Car. 1. did Devise the premisses to Dulcibella his Wife for Life for so many years of the said 99 years as should not be spent in her Life and after her death then to the said Nicholas Love the Son for so many years of the said term as he should live and afrer the death of him and the said Dulcibella unto the Defendant Barnabas his Executors Administrators and Assigns for all the residue of the said term and made the said Dulcibella his Executrix who assented the said Will and Executory devise and she enjoyed the premisses during her life and after her dearh which was about 1656 the said Nicholas Love the Son entred and by virtue of the Will possessed the premisses for the residue of the said term as was not spent and not by virtue of any Assignment nor otherwise than the said Executory devise and if the said Nicholas did purchase the premisses of the Usurpers the same ought not to prejudice the Defendant Barnaby's Right and Interest in the premisses by the said Executory devise which he claimeth after the death of Nicholas the Son by virtue of the said Will of his Father as aforesaid and say That Nicholas the Son had no other Estate therein but in expectancy of the death of Dulcibella This Court referred it to be tryed at Law upon this Issue viz. Whether the Defendant Barnaby by the Will of the said Dr. Love hath or shall have any Estate or Interest or possibility in the premisses after the death of the said Nicholas Love the Son if the term so long continue The said Issue was tryed Term is devised to N. and if he die without Issue then to B. this is a void Devise to B. it is too remote a possibility where a Special Verdict was found That Gilbert Searle being possest of the premisses for the Lives of Nicholas Robert and the Defendant Barnaby demised the premisses to Dr. Nicholas Love for 99 years if either of the Three live so long and that the said Dr. afterwards made his Will and devised the premisses to Dulcibella his Wife for her life and after to Nicholas his Son for his Life and if he died without Issue then to the Defendant Barnaby and made the said Dulcibella Executrix who assented to the said Devise That in Easter Term last the Special Verdict was Argued in the Kings-Bench and upon great Debates Judgment was given for the Plaintiff This Court Declared That the Defendant hath no Right or Title to the premisses and Decreed the Plaintiffs their Heirs and Assigns to enjoy against the Defendant Vide this Case well debated at Common Law in Siderfin's Reports p. 450. Windham and Love Moseley cont Maynard 20 Car. 2. fo 999. 22 Car. 2. fo 274. THis Suit is Bill to have a Will decreed to have the Will of Sir Edward Moseley Decreed which upon a Trial hath been found a good Will This Court with the assistance of Judges declared They saw no Cause to decree the said Will. This Cause also is touching Alteration of Possession The Point touching the Decreeing of the said Will Heard and Argued again The Plaintiff insisted That it is the proper Justice of this Court to settle Estates in peace and quietness and pressed to have the Will decreed especially for that no Purchasor would meddle under the Title of the Will and that the Plaintiff was by the Will to raise 10000 l. to be paid according to the directions of the said Will by a time therein prefixed or else he forfeited his Estate therein But the Defendants insisted It is altogether improper to decree a Will in this Court especially to the disinheriting of a Feme Covert and her Son an Infant and that this Court had refused to decree the fame in a former Order with Judges This Court Ordered a New Bill to be brought The Point touching the Condition in the Will Proofs in an Original Cause not allowed to be read on a Bill of Review setled on a Bill of Review the Proofs in the Original Cause not allowed to be read Macklow contra Wilmot 20 Car. 2. fo 548. THe Plaintiff would have the Defendant examined on Interrogatories Defendant not to be Examined upon Interrogatories to discover Deeds and Writings and to be examined to other Matters The Defendant insists That what the Plaintiff now moves for may be of dangerous consequence being to discover the Estates of Purchasors to whom the said Defendants have sold most of the Lands in question and it is now long since the Cause was heard and many Attendances on the Master and Examinations before him and the Decree is Inrolled by the Plaintiff wherefore the Defendant ought not to be examined on Interrogatories being to put up the Order on Hearing in a Point that the Plaintiff at the Hearing did not think fit to move for This Court in regard the Examining of the Defendant on Interrogatories is omitted out of the Decree this Court would not now Order it Dominus Read contra Read 20 Car. 2. fo 146. L.B. THis Case is touching the granting a Ne Exeat Regnum against the Defendant Ne exeat Regnum The Defendanr insisted that the said Writ ought not to be issued out for that the Affidavit of the Lady Read did not contain ground sufficient to warrant it For that the Writ is a Writ of Prerogative on behalf of the Crown and the reason of granting it is that the party against whom it is prayed intends to convey away some considerable Treasure out of the Kingdom or do some other matter
prejudicial to the King or his Government which the Affidavit doth not specifie and if that were yet no Writ doth regularly lie in this Case against a Lay-man to find Security as this Writ is but only against a Clergy-man neither is the Writ Indorsed as formally it ought to be Supersedeas and therefore ought to be superseded and several Cases were offered and Presidents produced on the behalf of the Defendants But the Plaintiff insisted The Causes of a Ne exeat Regnum that by the Affidavit of Sir John Read the Defendant conveying and making over his Estate to others standing out an Excommunication and absconding his person and giving out That he intends to go beyond the Seas the said Writ is well warranted and for Justification thereof several Cases and Presidents were urged and it appearing that the only matter which carries any countenance or pretence of irregular issuing the Writ that it ought to be for a Clergy-man to find Security and not for a Lay-man is an Opinion taken up in a Posthumous Work of the Lord Coke 3 Inst 179. being called his 3d Institutes contrary to the general Authorities Presidents and Practice of granting Writs of Ne exeat Regnum in former and later Times which are usual against a Lay-man to find Security as well as a Clergy-man or else there can be no Writ at all to be found in the Register against a Lay-man to find Security in any case Lay-men to find Security as well as Clergy-men upon a Ne exeat Regnum or any Ne exeat Regnum against a Lay man neither is there in the Register any such form of Indorsing the Writ as is suggested but what is inserted in the Register is but a Note of some Observer So that his Lordship with the Judges are of Opinion upon the whole Matter that there is no ground to grant a Supersedeas of the said Writ of Ne exeat Regnum but that the same was well granted and ought to stand and Ordered it accordingly Dixon contra Read 20 Car. 2. fo 46. 561. THe Bill is No relief against a Bond entred into to a Solicitor to pay 100 l. when a Verdict should be recovered That the Plaintiff being Sued by the Defendant Read in the Sheriffs Court in London upon a Bond of 200 l. for the payment of 100 l. to the said Defendant by the Plaintiff when the said Defendant being a Solicitor should recover a Verdict on the behalf of one Thrale upon which Bond though the Defendant was so far from being instrumental in getting any such Verdict that he acted for Thrale's Adversary yet the Defendant hath gotten a Verdict on the said Bond Whereupon the Plaintiff removed the Cause into the Mayor's Court and from thence into this Court by Certiorari and the Plaintiff according to proceedings in such cases proved his Suggestions Yet the Defendant without a Procedendo Procedendo hath removed the Proceedings back out of the Mayor's Court into the Sheriffs Court and hath there taken out Execution and taken the Plaintiffs Bail thereupon and levied 102 l. This Cause was heard by the Master of the Rolls who saw no cause in Equity to Relieve the Plaintiff against the Penalty and Interest of the said Bond. This Cause came to a Re hearing before the Lord Chancellor being assisted with the Lord Chief Justice Hales who were of Opinion with the Master of the Rolls and confirmed his Decree Smith contra Holman 20 Car. 2. fo 192. THat the Defendant caused the Plaintiffs Bail at Law to be Arrested soon after the Plaintiff and Defendant had joyned in a Commission for Examining of Witnesses which was for the same Matter here in question and also about two days before the Execution of the Commission the said Defendant caused the Plaintiff to be Arrested when he was preparing for the said Commission so that the Plaintiff could not execute the same The Plaintiff prays That the Defendant for such his Abuse Plaintiff two days before the Commission for Examination of Witnesses was arrested by the Defendant and in Execution ordered to be discharged and the Defendant to pay Costs and be at the charge of a New Commission being against the ancient Priviledge of this Court to Suitors that are in the management of their Causes in this Court may stand Committed and pay the Cost of the last Commission and damages sustained by the said Arrest The Defendant insisted he was ignorant of such Priviledge and that the Plaintiff was now in Execution This Court in favour of the Desendant spared the Commitment but ordered him to pay the Plaintiff Costs of the last Commission as also his costs and damages sustained by reason of the Arrest Imprisonment and Prosecution thereon and referred it to a Master of this Court to Tax and that the Plaintiff giving a new Judgment for the debt in question the Defendant shall at his the Defendants Charges presently release and discharge the said Plaintiff out of Execution and the Defendant to be at the charges of a New Commission and the Plaintiff to take an Injunction till Hearing of this Cause Wiseman contra Foster 20 Car. 2. fo 731. THe Plaintiffs Father George Brigges by Will devised to the Plaintiff Ann 500 l. for her Portion which was appointed to be paid to her at the Age of One and twenty years or day of Marriage and made the Defendant Dame Ann Foster his then Wife and his Son George his Executors and by a subsequent Clause in his Will declared That it should be in the power of his Executors to order and dispose of the Plaintiffs Portion according to their discretion to the use of the rest of the Children unless the Plaintiff should marry by the advice and consent of the Defendant Dame Ann and others who were Overseers of his Will or the greater part of them And the Defendants insist That the Plaintiff hath Married without such consent therefore ought to have but 250 l. Whereas the Plaintiff insists That the said Clause was intended only in terrorem and awe to the Plaintiff Ann to induce her to take heed how she married and not that she should lose any part of her Portion so as she married one who deserved the same which she hath done with the consent of the Major part of the Overseers The Defendants insist Portion to be paid on Marriage with consent of c. Some consent and some not yet decreed to be paid That the Plaintiff marrying as aforesaid ought to have but 250 l. as by the Memorandum in the Will and the rest to be distributed amongst the other Children of the Testator But the Plaintiff insists That in this case there was not by the Will any devise over to the said other Children This Court upon Reading the Proofs touching the approbation of the Major part of the Overseers and their consent to the Plaintiffs marriage decreed the Defendants to pay the Five
of the said Testator Joseph Jackson This Court upon reading the said Deeds and Will Mortgage-Mony payable to the Executor and not to the Heir by several good circumstances in the Conveyances conceived that there was no question in the Case but that the said several Sums of 2000 l. and 500 l. being the Mortgage-mony ought to go not to the Heir but to the Executors and to be accounted part of the Testators personal Estate he having by his Will given his real Estate by Name to his Heir besides his Portion of 2000 l. and one 4th part of the Overplus of his personal Estate the rather for that it was not in the power of the Heir to discharge the Judgment or the Mortgage and the Moneys by the several Provisoes being made payable to the Executor and not to the Heir and the Original Mortgage being but for years though altered by Act in Law and the Testator having by Will charged the Lands devised to his Heir to supply the deficiency if the personal Estate should not be sufficient Whereas if he had not taken the Mortgages to be part of his personal Estate he would have supplied the same out of the Mortgages and decreed Sir Thomas Hooke to Redeem and he pay the Plaintiffs the Executors the Mortgage-Mony with Interest Tolson contra Lamplugh 21 Car. 2. fo 786. THe Plaintiff prays liberty to make use of Depositions taken in a former Cause wherein Henry Tolson Depositions taken in a former Cause made use of the Plaintiffs late Father deceased was Plaintiff against Abraham Molline and his Wife and Mr. Winstanley Defendants The Defendant Lamplugh insisted That there is no colour or ground for the using the said Depositions taken in the Cause wherein the said Henry Tolson was Plaintiff at the Trial directed those Depositions being taken in a Cause whereto neither of the Defendants the Lamplugh's are parties and there is more difference of the Title between the Defendants the Lamplugh's and Mr. Moline and Winstanley than between the said Lamplugh and the Plaintiff Tolson The Plaintiff Tolson insisted That the Defendants the Lamplugh's claimed and derived their Title under Mr. Moline and his Wife and Winstanley and so the said Depositions ought to be used at the Trial which the Defendant denied This Court declared That the Depositions in the said former Cause ought to be used against the now Defendants the Lamplugh's unless they claim under the said former Defendants but if they do then the said former Depositions ought to be admitted as Evidence against them Hunton contra Davies 22 Car. 2. fo 386. THE Bill is for 500 l. Remainder of 2900 l. which Mr. Hugh Ordley was to pay for the purchase of Land to the Plaintiffs Father which 500 l. was decreed to be paid to one Castle in 1637. for the use of the Plaintiff which 500 l. and Interest comes to 1184 l. and to have the Defendants the purchasors of the Land to pay it To which Bill the Defendants Bill for Remainder of purchase-Mony Defendant pleads it is 33 years since and never any Suit for it but the Land enjoyed and former parties concerned dead per Cur ' a good Plea the Executors of Ordley pleaded That Mr. Ordley lived in London till 1662. and the Plaintiff might have had remedy against him and it being a debt 33 years since and no Suit commenced against Ordely in his life time nor any till now and the Lands enjoyed by others now and the Defendants the Executors have nothing to shew for the payment and Case and all former parties concerned therein being dead and therefore after all this time the Defendants hope this Court will not suppose that the said Mony is unpaid or that the Defendants ought to be charged therewith and the Defendants being Executors and Strangerr to all the Matters aforesaid This Court held the Plea and Demurrer good Malpas contra Vernon 22 Car. 2. fo 360. A Bill of Review Bill of Review to Reverse a Decree whereby the Plaintiff is decreed to pay more Mony than by his Agreement on his Purchase he was to pay This Court declared That without a special Agreement at the time of the purchase for payment of the debt claimed by the Defendant the Plaintiff ought not to be oblig'd by the Decree to pay the Defendants no such Agreement appearing by the Decree or any Proof offered at the Hearing The Defendant insisted That by the Proofs there is an Agreement proved whereby the Defendant amongst other Creditors was to be satisfied his debt Now the Point being No new Proofs admitted upon a Bill of Review upon a second Agreement whether any special Agreement was made for the purpose aforesaid and the Court had declared no new Proofs could be admitted in the Cause this Court Ordered by consent That the Cause be heard on the said point of Agreement on the old Proofs and no other Comes Castle-Haven contra Vnderhill 22 Car. 2. fo 106. THis is a Bill of Review Bill of Review to Reverse a Decree in 12 Car. 1. wherein the now Defendant was Plaintiff against the Lady Vice Countess of St. Albons his Wife and others Defendants The points of Error were That the Decree was grounded on a Bill exhibited by the now Defendant against the said Lady St. Albons his then Wife and was made by Consent without any Judicial Hearing whereby a Settlement and disposition of the said Ladies Lands whereof she had an Estate in Fee was made without any Fine or Recovery levied or suffered or any other legal Act done to bar and bind her or her Inheritance which the said Plaintiff conceives could not be done the said Lady being a Feme Covert and could not in Law or Equity consent nor could her Trustees by her consent charge the Inheritance wherein they had no legal Assurance The now Defendants insist That 2 Car. 1. the said Lady St. Albons after her Intermarriage with the now Defendant did settle 300 l. per Annum and several Recoveries were suffered whereby the same would have come to the Defendant after the said Ladies death as an Estate in Fee the said Lady dying without Issue That afterwards the said Lady and the Defendant came to another Agreement viz. That the Defendant should have 400 l. per Annum out of the said Ladies Estate to him and his Assigns for life and in consideration thereof the said Defendant agreed to quit and debar himself of and from all claim and interest to any of the rest of the said Ladies Estate real or personal during their joynt Lives or after her death and in case of failure of payment or the said Ladies death the Defendant was to enter into all the Estate for Satisfaction which said 400 l. per Annum was setled by Deed Tripartite 14 Car. 1. and the said Agreement and Settlement was confirmed by a Decree 17 Car. 1. by the consent of all parties and that the said Lady by Will gave away
Plaintiff to pay interest for for the 5000 l. to 1641 at 8 l. per Cent. and from 41 to 49 the certain profits of the Mortgaged premisses to go in discharge of the interst till that time and that if the remaining interest with the 5000 l. should in 49 amount to 7000 l. then the Plaintiff to pay Interest for 7000 l. else only for so much as the principal and Interest according to the Statutes in force This Cause was again Reheard by the Lord Chancellor Shaftsbury assisted with Judge Vaughan and Judge Ransford The Defendant insisted that setting of the interest against the certain profits from 41 to 49 as aforesaid was a great advantage to the Plaintiff and that after so long a time the Plaintiff ought not to be permitted to redeem This Court nevertheless was satisfied That the Plaintiff ought to redeem and the Matters now in Controversie being Whether the certain Profits of the premisses shall go against the Interest from 41 to 49 or not and whether the Plaintiff shall pay Interest for any more than the 50000 l. first lent or not and what Interest he shall pay at least during the hard times of War This Court on hearing Presidents was clear of Opinion The certain Profits of the premisses set against the Interest That the Setting the certain Profits of the premisses against the Interest from 41 to 49 ought to be discharged and decreed the same accordingly And touching that Point for what Monies the Plaintiff shall pay Interest either for the 5000 l. only or any greater Sum. This Court with the Judges were of Opinion That the Plaintiff ought not to pay Interest for any greater Sum than only for the 5000 l. the Original Mortgages This Court declaring there is no Reason to give Interest upon Interest Interest upon Interest and that the now Defendant ought not to be in any better condition than Sir Abraham Dawes the first Mortgagee Crisp contra Bluck 25 Car. 2. fo 357. THis Case comes to be heard upon a Bill of Review Bill of Review and an Appeal from a Decree made by the Lord Chancellor Shaftsbury the Plaintiffs Original Bill being to be relieved against a Bond of 1600 l. penalty for payment of 1000 l. and Interest entred by the Plaintiffs Father the Testator and others to William Bluck the younger in 1642. The Defendant commenced Suit on the said Bond in 1662. Bond and Judgment after upon it and the Principal and Interest far surmounted the Penalty when Judgment was entred how payment of Monies shall be applied in such case and had Judgment thereupon against the Plaintiffs Father only and the Principal and Interest due on the said Bond far surmounting the Penalty when Judgment was obtained and the Defendant being 20 years kept out of his Mony but having received several Sums in part since the Action at Law brought it was decreed That whatever Monies were received before the Judgment actually entred should be taken in discharge of the Interest of the said 1000 l. Original debt and that the Defendant should be satisfied after the Judgment entred the whole Mony thereupon recovered with damages from the time the Judgment was actually entred deducting what he had received since the actual entry of the Judgment and allowing his Costs at Law and moderate Costs in this Court And it was found that the Judgment was not actually entred till the Vacation after Michaelmass Term 1662. and so only 250 l. paid in November 1662. Whether Mony paid shall be applied to discharge Interest of the Original debt or towards satisfaction Recovered by Judgment on the same Bond. Judgment when said to be entred was accounted Interest of the Original debt and not towards the Mony recovered by the Judgment and the Account was so setled and decreed and the Mony paid accordingly Yet for Reversal of the said Decree the now Plaintiff for Error assigns that the same tends to the invalidating of the Course of the Court of Kings Bench it being by the Decree admitted that the said Judgment was entred in the Vacation after Michaelmass Term 1662. and not before Whereas it is evident by the Records of the Kings-Bench the said Judgment was entred on Record in Michaelmass Term 1662. and by construction of Law is supposed and presumed to be Recorded the first day of that Term against which Record no Evidence or Averment ought to be admitted and all Monies paid after the first day of that Term ought in Equity to be applied towards satisfaction of the Judgment and so the 250 l. paid in November 1662. in part of a debt in question ought not to go to satisfie the Interest but in part to discharge the Principal The Lord Chancellor Shaftsbury was of Opinion If entred before the Effoin-day of the subsequent Term ought to be accounted a Judgment of the preceding Term. That no Notice could be taken of any actual entry of any Judgment at Law but that every Jugment whensoever entred if before the Essoin day of the subsequent Term ought to be accounted a Judgment of the first day of the Term before and allowed and held the said Error to be good and decreed the 250 l. paid in Nov. 1662. should go and be applied as part of satisfaction of the 1600 l. and damages due on the Judgment and what other Monies were paid by any other of the Obligors their Heirs Executors Administrators or Assigns since the 20th of October 1662. if not paid on other account shall be applied in further satisfaction of the said Judgment first to discharge the Interest and then to sink the Principal and as to so much did reverse the said Decree and the Defendant appealed from this said Decree to the Lord Keeper Finch and insisted That by his Answer to the Original Bill said when the 250 l. was paid the Judgment was not entred and presently after Hearing the Original Cause the late Lord Keeper Bridgman calling to his Assistance the Master of the Rolls who declared That the Defendant should not account for any Mony as received on the Judgment until the said Judgment which was his Security was really and actually entred if the Plaintiff insisted as before which was Over-ruled and the Plaintiff then brought a Bill of Review to which the Defendant pleaded and demurred and thereupon the Lord Bridgman declared the Decree to be Just as to the 250 l. and the Decree made by the Lord Shaftsbury is to unravel the Account setled and to charge the Defendant with 4000 l. when by the Original Bill or Bills of Review they do not charge him with above the Penalty of the said Judgment This Court now declared That the Examination of the time of the actual Entry of the Judgment in this Case Examination of the actual entry of a Judgment at Law only intended to inform the Court and not to impeach the Judgment did not impeach the Judgment but only to guide the
Conscience of the Court in the application of the payment of the Mony and therefore as this Case is the whole Mony having been decreed and setled as aforesaid the Examination of the time of the actual Entry of the said Judgment tended not to the invalidating thereof but only to inform the Court when and how it came to be Recorded Examination of Originals filed is to be in the Courts at Law which in Cases of Originals filed to prevent the Statutes of Limitation and other Cases of like nature are usually Examined in the Courts at Law the Court saw no cause to relieve the Plaintiffs on their Bill of Review and dismissed their Bill of Review Dethick contra Banks 25 Car. 2. fo 143. A Free-man of London did assign over an Adventure to the Defendant his Son A Free-man of London disposeth an Adventure to his Son No breach of the Custom as to the Wives third part against which the Plaintiff complains and insists It is contrary to the Custom of London and tends to defeat the Plaintiff his Wife of a full third part of the personal Estate This Court with the Judges held the disposition to be good and could not relieve the Plaintiff Harmer contra Brooke 25 Car. 2. fo 648. THe Bill is to have an Execution of a Marriage Agreement Bill to perform a Marriage Agreement the Plaintiff Harmer with the encouragement of Thomas Hamling was to marry the Plaintiff Elizabeth the only Daughter and Heir of the said Thomas Hamling the Plaintiff Harmer being a man of a great Trade and in Consideration thereof the said Thomas Hamling was to pay the Plaintiff Harmer 500 l. at Christmass following and to settle on the Plaintiff and his Heirs a House in Sussex and at his death to give to the Plaintiff Elizabeth his Daughter all his Estate real and personal except 400 l. which he intended to the Defendant his Brothers Son whereupon the Plaintiff Harmer married the said Elizabeth but now the said Thomas Hamling the Plaintiffs Father refuses to perform his Agreement and Promise aforesaid the Plaintiff marrying without his consent and liking as is pretended and died without performance thereof and made a Will and the Defendant his Executor which Will the Plaintiff insists was voluntary and ought in Equity to be set aside the Plaintiff being disinherited thereby and to have the said Marriage Agreement performed is the Plaintiffs Bill The Defendant insists That the said Marriage was had by surprize and without the Consent of the said Thomas the Father and that he did never approve of it but when told of it was in great Passion and said his Daughter was undone and then made his Will in these words viz. I give and bequeath unto Elizabeth my only Daughter lately married against my consent and good liking to Francis Harmer the Sum of 20 l. over and above the Sum of 500 l. which I intend to pay her my self in full for her Portion and the said Thomas the Father being afterwards moved to alter his said Will declared he would not alter the same and that he would not be a President to disobedient Children and the Defendant claims the said Estate real and personal by virtue of the said Will. This Court ordered it to be Tried at Law Whether Thomas the Father did agree to give the Plaintiff Francis Harmer with the said Elizabeth any other or further Estate real or personal at any time over and besides the said 500 l. That a Verdict passed for the Plaintiff And after a Trial at Law the Marriage Agreement decreed to be made good That Thomas the Father did agree to give the Plaintiff Francis Harmer with the said Elizabeth a further Estate real and personal besides the 500 l. This Court was satisfied there was such a Marriage Agreement and that the same ought to be made good and decreed accordingly Tregonwell contra Lawrence 25 Car. 2. fo 582. THe Bill is An Injunction to restrain Ploughing or Burn-beating of Pasture to restrain the Defendant being Tenant for life from ploughing up or converting into Tillage Pasture Ground to the damage of the Plaintiffs inheritance The Defendant insisted That the said Land was very full of Bushes and Fuz and that the Ploughing and Burn-beating was an improvement of it The Plaintiff insisted That the Lands are Sheeps-strete or Sheeps-slight the surface or soyl being so thin that if the same be ploughed up two years together the Lands will yield no profit in many years after This Court on reading an Order 20th Febr. 25 Car. 2. and a Certificate of Referrees doth decree That a perpetual Injunction be awarded to restrain the Defendant from Ploughing up or Burn-beating of the said Lands above two years Sutton Vxor ejus contra Jewke 25 Car. 2. fo 178. THat 1500 l. Sum left for a Portion But if she marry without consent then a part to be to another was to be put out at Interest for the use and benefit of the Plaintiff Ann and then the said 1500 l. and the proceed thereof to be paid her at her Age of 21 or Marriage but if the Plaintiff Ann should Marry without the Consent of the Defendant Jewke and his Wife being her Father and Mother or one of them or the Survivor of them then 500 l. part of the said 1500 l. to be paid to such person as the Defendant Jewke his Wife by Writing under her Hand and without her Husband should appoint That the said Defendant Jewke his Wife died in 1668. without making any Appointment so that the Plaintiff Ann is thereupon become intituled to the whole 1500 l. and the proceed thereof That the Plaintiff Ann married in 1671. and this Suit is to be relieved for the 1500 l. and Interest The Defendant Jewke insists That Mary his Wife died in 70. but before her death in 1669. by Deed Parol directed that in case the Plaintiff Ann married without the Consent of her the said Mary or the Defendant Jewke her Husband then 500 l. part of the said 1500 l. to be paid to her and the Defendant or the Survivor of them and that the said Deed was made upon mature deliberation to keep the said Plaintiff in due Obedience and that the Plaintiff Sutton having in a clandestine manner married with the Plaintiff Ann without the Defendant Jewke his privity or consent and after he had forbidden his Daughter to marry with him on the forfeiture of his Blessing or what otherwise she might expect from him the said Defendant Jewke by means thereof and by being Administrator to his late Wife became intituled to 500 l. part of the said 1500 l. So the Chief point now controverted is Whether the Plaintiff Ann. be intituled to the whole 1500 l. or whether she had not forfeited 500 l. thereof by her marriage without her Fathers consent and privity and contrary to his direction and advice His Lordship was fully satisfied 500 l. Decreed
Charles to reward such of his Children and Grand children as they should demerit and as Sir Charles should think fit and not an absolute fixed Trust to create a certainty of right or in terest as to any certain Proportion in any of the Children or Grand children much less in the Plaintiff Civil Rich who demands the greatest part of the Estate and that it was in the Grandfathers power to give the said Estate or what Proportions thereof as he pleased to any of his Children or Grand-children but whatever of the real Estate of Sir Edwin was disposed or setled by the said Sir Charles by act Executed in his Life time or was devised or given by the Will of the said Sir Charles the Plaintiff not to be releived but dismist the Bill Boeve contra Skipwith 30 Car. 2. fo 140. THe Bill is a Suplemental Bill A Supplemental Bill for a further discovery to have a further discovery from the Defendant by way of Evidence for the better clearing the Matters depending on the Account which the Defendant hath not answered in the former Cause The Plaintiff pleaded the former Bill to which the Defendant answered and the Cause heard and the Account directed This Court ordered the Defendant to answer to all Matters in this Bill not answered to in the former Cause but the Plaintiff not to reply nor to proceed further Dom. Grey al' contra Colvile al' 30 Car. 2. fo 397. THe Plaintiff the Lady Greys Bill is to be relieved for a debt of 1500 l. and Interest on Bond Lands purchased in Trust decreed Assets to to pay Judgment wherein John Colvile did bind himself and his Heirs to repay the same unto the Plaintiff her Executors and Assigns that the same might be paid out of the Lands which were purchased by the said John Colvile with his own proper Mony in the names of himself and the Defendants Wife to hold to them two for their lives and then to the Heirs of Colvile and the rest were purchased in the names of the said Defendants Morriss and Saunders in Trust for the said John Colvile and his Heirs That soon after and before the 1500 l. was paid the said John Colvile died and the right and equity of the premisses during the life of the said Defendants Wife is in Josia Colvile and the Reversion in Fee after the death of the said Wife will descend to the said Defendant Josia Colvile as Son and Heir of the said John Colvile and the profits are received by him or for his use that the said John Colvile dying intestate Administration is granted to Dorothy his Relict who pleads she hath no personal Estate whereupon the Lady Grey commenced a Sute at Law by filing an Original for her said debt against the Defendant Josia as Son and Heir of the said John Colvile and hath got Judgment thereon to have satisfaction for the said debt out of the Reversion of the Lands of John which descended in Fee to the said Defendant Josia Colvile and ought to have satisfaction accordingly but the said Defendant Josia pretendeth he hath nothing by descent in present but the Reversion of the Lands purchased in the names of John Colvile and his Wife after the death of his Wife whereas he and the other two Defendants were only Trustees for John Colvile and his Heirs and their Trust being now come to the Defendant Josia they are liable as Assets in equity for satisfaction of the Plaintiffs debts and the Plaintiff ought to be let into the immediate Possession and the said Josia also insists That the premisses are incumbred by a former Judgment of one Lease for 800 l. and the Plaintiffs Creditors and other the Creditors in their Suit seeking relief against the same Defendants upon the same Trust and Equity and to have their debts paid out of the said Lands they insisting they are Creditors by Judgment grounded on Original of the same day and date with the said Lady Grey and ought to be satisfied in equal degree and time The Plaintiffs Creed and the other Creditors insist Judgments to Attach Lands according to priority of Originals That they for so much as the Estate in Law of Wise is in the Heir that their Judgments ought to Attach the Lands according to priority of Originals and tho' the said Leke have obtained a Decree prior to the Creditors in these Suits yet the same is to be subject to the direction of this Court and ought not to take place but according to the Date of their Originals This Court it being admitted by all that the Original on which the said Lekes Judgment is grounded is prior to all the other Creditors Originals and that the Plaintiff the Lady Grey and Creeds Originals are next in priority and bear the same date one with another and ought next to be satisfied with other Judgments who Originally bear the same date declared that the Estate purchased in the Names of the Defendants Wise as aforesaid was a Trust for life attending the Reversion and so liable to make the several Plaintiffs Satisfaction for their Debts and should be enjoyed by the Plaintiffs against the said Wise and Josiah Colvile the Heir and the Court decreed that if the Estate of Wise as aforesaid were not sufficient then the said Reversionary Lands purchased in the Names of the said Morris and Sanders after the death of Sir John Tufton who hath an Estate for life in the said Lands should go towards Satisfaction of the said Debts Carr contra Bedford 30 Car. 2. fo 64. THe Bill being Will. that Edmund Arnold having no Child by his Will whereof he made the Defendant Bedford Executor gave several Legacies to several persons and uses and gave all the rest and residue of his Moneys and Personal Estate after Debts paid to and amongst his Kindred according to their most need to be distributed amongst them by his Executors saving such Legacies as should by his Will or any Codicil further dispose of and the Testator afterwards by Codicil gave other Legacies and desired that a care and regard should be had to the Plaintiff John Buncher The Defendant the Executor insists that he not knowing to what degroe of Kindred the bequest of the said residue ought to extend he had annexed two Schedules of Remorest Kindred and is advised until their several Claims were examined and setled by this Court he could not safely make a distribution This Court taking into consideration Devise after Debts and Legacies paid the Residue amongst his Kindred according to their most need this to be extended according to the Act for better Settlement of Intestates Estates to what degree of Kindred the Testator's bequest of the residue of his Personal Estate to his Kindred of most need could extend that the Act of Parliament for better setling Intestates Estates was the best Rule that could be observed as to the Limiting the extent of the word Kindred and
such time as it is payable to the Child if it had not died neither is the Plaintiff intituled to any of the ready Mony in the House of Normanton which was 407 l. by any general Words in the Will But the Plaintiffs insist That by the general Words in the Will I devise all my Goods Chattels and Housholdstuff in and about my House at Normanton will carry the said 407 l. to the Wife as a particular Legacy and it ought not to be brought into the Account of the personal Estate This Court declared By the general words in a Will I devise all my Goods Chattels and Houshold-stuff in and about my House to c. 470 l. ready Monies in the House shall not pass to the Devisee she having had a particular Legacy of 1200 l. devised to her by the said Will. That as to the 407 l. though the Words were general yet considering the Intention of the Testator who by his said Will having before given to the Plaintiff Margaret a Legacy of 1200 l. if that he had intended to have given her 407 l. over and above the 1200 l. he might in the same place of the Will have given her 1600 l. as well as 1200 l. and therefore conceived that the Plaintiff ought not to have the 407 l. but this same ought to come in to the Account of the Personal Estate and decreed the same accordingly and as to the 500 l. claimed by the Plaintiff as Administratrix to her said Daughter whether the same ought to be paid presently or not till such time as the said Daughter might have come to the Age of 16 years if she had lived being the next Question This Court declared and decreed Legacy to be paid at 16 years of Age. Legatee dies before her Administratrix shall not receive it till the 16 years end That the same shall not be paid until such time as the said Daughter might have attained her Age of 16 years if she had lived but the same to stand charged on the Estate subject to the Sum by the Will unto that time and then the Sum to be paid to the Plaintiff her Executors Administrators or Assigns by the Defendants their Heirs and Assigns Elvard contra Warren 32 Car. 2. fo 255. THe Plaintiff having a Sequestation against the Defendants real and personal Estate for non-payment of 536 l. Sequestration decreed to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff prayed the same might be paid him out of the Defendants Estate so far as it will extend and out of the Security given by the Defendant for abiding the Order on Hearing and also prayed for that some part of the Defendants Estate now under Sequestration is a contingent Term which will determine upon the death of one person whereby the Plaintiff may lose his said Debt That the Commissioners of the Sequestration may be impowered to sell the said Estate and prayed also in regard the Defendants Estate is not sufficient to satisfie the Plaintiffs said demand that a Recognizance given by the Defendant to abide the Decree may be produced and inrolled This Court Ordered the said 536 l. Interest and Costs to be paid by the said Defendant The Mony decreed to be paid out of the Sequestred Estate and the Commissioners have power to sell the Term to raise the same or out of the Sequestred premisses or the Security before-mentioned and that the Commissioners of the Sequestration do sell such of the sequestred premisses as are held for any term for the best price and the Mony thereby raised to pay the Plaintiff towards satisfaction of his demands The Question is Whether the Defendant being charged in Prison in Bristol with a Decree of this Court can be discharged without satisfying the Decree it being insisted on that a Decree in this Court is not a Judgment to detain the Defendant This Court declared A Decree in Chancery as effectual to charge the person as an Execution at Law That a Decree in this Court is as effectual to charge the person of the Defendant as an Execution at Law and the Defendant being charged with the Decree the Court declared if the Warden of the Fleet let him go it should be at his peril Glenham contra Statvile 32 Car. 2. fo 755. THese being cross Causes Bill of Revivor dismist the Defendant Charles Statvile exhibited his Bill to be relieved against the Plaintiff and his Wife touching a Rent charge for which the Plaintiff and his Wife by their Bill claims and the Defendant Judith Statvile exhibited her Bill against the Distresses pretending the Lands out of which the Annuity issues is her Joynture Which Causes being heard a Trial at Law was directed to try whether the Arrears of the Annuity was paid upon Trial the Plaintiff obtained a Verdict for 475 l. and the Causes coming again to be heard it was decreed that the Defendants should pay the 475 l. with Interest and Costs which Costs were afterwards taxed to 226 l. and that Report confirmed and a Writ of Execution of the said Decree and Report left at the Defendants House and Mony demanded and for Non payment an Attachment issued against the Defendant Charles Statvile who appeared and was examined and certified not in Contempt but upon Arguing the Exceptions to the Certificate the Defendant was ordered to pay the 475 l. and the said Costs except 100 l. thereof which was remitted But the Defendant did not pay the Mony and the Plaintiffs Wife being since dead he hath Administration and is intituled to the Monies But the Defendants refuse to pay the same insisting That the said Decree and Proceedings are abated so that the Plaintiff now by his Bill seeks relief in the premisses and that a Subpoena ad Revivend Respondend or such other Process as the Matter should require might be awarded The Defendant by Demurrer insists That in case the Plaintiffs Bill shall be taken for an Original Bill then it contains no Equity he having remedy at Law and that the Plaintiff was a Defendant in former Suits No Defendant in case of Abatement before the Decree signed can revive and by the course of the Court no Defendant or any that represents him in case of an Abatement before the Decree or Final Judgment be signed and inrolled can or ought to revive and the Bill does not say that any Decree or Final Judgment is signed and inrolled and it is contrary to the Rules of the Court to make a Decree against the Plaintiff upon his own Bill and it would be meerly vexatious if the Plaintiff should revive his former Proceedings which if revived the now Plaintiff can have no Final Judgment contrary to the Prayer of his Answer to the Original Bill which was that he might be dismissed No Revivor for Costs there being no Decree inrolled and the Plaintiffs demands by the New Bill are chiefly for Costs of Suits which are extinguished by the death of the Plaintiffs Wife and
Mudghill as well as the other Lands and made other particular provisions further which shews he did not intend that for her for if he had he would not have Revoked the former Trusts as to that by which she would have been intituled as Heir especially when he hath devised all the Surplus of his Estate which involves Mudghill as well as the rest amongst his own three Daughters and her equally nor doth it any where appear that Mudghill is in any sort exempted from Satisfaction of the Creditors nor could it so be by the said deed made by Sir Olando Bridgman who best knew the intention of all Parties in this matter But the Plaintiffs insisted That the said Duke could not intend Mudghill should be conveyed to the uses declared in the Will for that the same is to be conveyed to the said Lord John and the Heirs Males of his Body which is an Estate of Inheritance and he had power by a common Recovery to have bound the remainder and the reversion after the Estate tale is not Assets in Law and therefore cannot be conceived for the payment of his debts and the rather for that he recites deeds in 1652. and April 1654. and directs the Trustees therein to convey all his Lands and Mannours in those deeds to his Dutchess and others as to the Mannour of Mudghill as before he declared by his Will and as to all the rest of the Mannours he declared for the payment of his Debts so that all the rest excludes the Mannours of Mudghill and upon the whole Will it doth appear the Duke intended no Reversion should pass but Reversions after Estates for life or years and therefore this Reversion of Mudghill which is after an Estate Tail doth not pass and if it had been intended to pass he would have limited it to the said Lord John for life without remainder to his first or other Sons in Tail for he had before given him a better Estate in Mudghill to him and the Heirs of his Body and the Trustees were not to settle Mudghill accordingly until the same fell in possession the same being yet for Pleydalls life This Court on reading the several Deeds and Will declared That although the Lord John might possibly have an Estate Tail in him and doct it but he not doing it this Court can take no notice of it though probably he did forbear to do it because Duke William had Signified his desire Reversion after an Estate in Tail subject to Trusts for payment of debts that he should not have an Estate executed to him till it should fall in possession and not before except the Trustees pleased But the case must be taken as it doth appear before the Court that is Mudghill was once liable to the payment of the Debts of Duke William and tho' 't is pretended that the Will hath taken out Mudghill yet the said Will doth only take out an Estate Tail but the Revesion thereof when the same falls in possession is subject to the same Trust and goes in company with the other Reversions and the same is legally conveyed and doth pass in the general words and therefore this Court is of Opinion that the Reversion of Mudghill is part of the unrevoked Estate and that the Lord Bridgman did well when he made the said Conveyance to the Lady Dutchess and that when the 19100. l. and the said other debts are paid to which Mudghill is as well liable as the other Mannours and Lands then the Trustees ought to convey all the premisses in Fourths and decreed accordingly Maddocks contra Wren 32 Car. 2. fo 22. THe question in this Cause is Mortgage Account with what profits the Defendant Wren shall be charged in ease of the Plaintiff who claims the premisses in question by virtue of a second Mortgage and is admitted to a Redemption on payment of what shall appear due to the Defendant Wren who hath the prior Mortgage The Plaintiff insists That the said Mortgage being of a Lease and the Defendant Wren having possession by Attornment of Tenants he ought to have received the profits whereby his Mortgage would have been fully satisfied yet he permitted the other Plaintiff Dorothy Wife of the Plaintiff Maddox the Mortgager to receive the same and therefore the said Wren ought to be charged whereby the Plaintiff may be let in to have Satisfaction of his Debt This Court declared The prior Mortgagee upon Redemption by the second Mortgagee shall be charged with the profits by whom soever Received after the Second Mortgage That the Defendant Wren ought to be charged with the Rent whether received by the Wife or any other Person after the Plaintiffs second Mortgage made but all received by her before the said second Mortgage he ought not to be charged Coles contra Hancock 32 Car. 2. fo 112. THat Benjamin Coles the 11th of June Revocation of a Will 1678. made his Will in writing and thereby gave to and amongst his then Children naming them viz. Benjamin Samuel Mary and Hannah Portions and appointed his Real Estate to be Sold and added to his Personal Estate and made Elizabeth his Wife his Executrix and the Testator being a Melancholy Person and fearing he might forfeit his Estate by making himself away to prevent a forfeiture by deed the 14 of June 1678. made over all his Personal Estate to Trustees first to pay his debts then to pay some Legacies and all the rest of his Estate to be divided amongst the aforesaid four Children That the Testator afterwards died a natural death but before his death had another Child viz. Sarah who is not provided for either by the said Will or Deed. The question is whether the said Will be Revoked by the said Deed of Trust that if it be Revoked then the said Sarah insists to have her share of her Fathers Estate and that he ought to be looked upon as dying Intestate and at least the Personal Estate ought to be distributed by the Act for distributing Intestates Estates and the deed ought not to stand in her way for that great part of the Estate did consist in debts which were made after the said deed and did not pass to or was vested in the said Trustees and that it is against Natural Right and Conscience that her Father leaving a considerable Estate she should have nothing of it This Court on reading the said Deed and Will is of opinion A Deed of Trust no Revocation of a Will that the said deed of Trust is no Revocation of the said Will being not made with intent to revoke the same but only to prevent the forfeiture in a case which never hapned and Decreed the same to be set aside and the Personal Estate to be distributed according to the Will and the remainder to be divided amongst the four Children Benjamin Samuel Mary and Hannah Estate Devised to be sold for increase of his Childrens Portions and a Child
the premisses as aforesaid for that Mary sued her Mother and had her portion out of the personal Estate and though the Defendants Father might intend to give the Plaintiffs Father the premisses and sealed a Deed for that purpose yet he altered his Mind and never perfected it and there was no Consideration for his so doing And the Defendant insists He ought to enjoy the premisses for that by the Plaintiffs own shewing his Title is defective and therefore ought not to receive any countenance in a Court of Equity against the Defendant who is Heir at Law to his Father and Grandfather and comes in and ought to have the Aid of the Court to protect his Title But the Plaintiffs Council insisted That the Defendants detaining of the said Deed is a Fraud and the Consideration of making the said Deed is valuable Defect of Livery and Seisin aided in Chancery and there is no defect therein but want of Livery and Seizin which defect this Court hath often supplied when no Fraud appears in gaining the Deed. This Court the said Deed appearing to be fairly executed by the Defendants Father and that there was no defect therein save only the form of Livery and Seizin and made on such valuable Consideration as Marriage decreed the Defendant to execute Livery and Seizin in the said Deed and make farther assurance of the said premisses to the Plaintiff and his Heirs and the Plaintiff is decreed to enjoy the same against the Defendant Barker contra Hill 33 Car. 2. fo 278. THe Plaintiff having Contracted with the Defendants Father for the purchase of a Copyhold Estate Upon a Contract for Copy-hold Estate and purchase Mony paid the Bargainor dies before Surrender his Heir decreed to surrender the Plaintiff paid the purchase Mony and the Defendants Father agreed to surrender the premisses at next Court and said He had made a Surrender lately to the use of his Will which would enure to the benefit of any Purchaser but before next Court day and any Surrender made the Defendants Father died so the Bill is to have the Defendant his Son and Heir to confirm the Plaintiffs purchase by Surrender or otherwise as this Court shall direct This Court decreed the Defendant when he came of Age to surrender effectually the premisses to the Plaintiff and the Lord of the Mannor presently to admit the Plaintiff Tenant to the premisses Bonnington contra Walthall 33 Car. 2. fo 37. THe Defendant Walthall claims an Annuity of 100 l. per An. Annuity and Interest out of the Estate in question ever since August 1642. with Interest by virtue of a Deed of that date made by himself to Mr. Serjeant Willmot and others whereby it is appointed that the Trustees in the said Deed should dispose of the Monies by them raised by profits and sale of the premisses for payment to the said Defendant and his Assigns during his life and the life of Peter Bonnington the yearly Sum of 100 l. and the said demand of the said 100 l. per Annum and Interest being a Matter of great value and moment in the Cause it is referred to the Judgment of the Court whether all or how long the said 100 l. per Annum shall or ought to be allowed in this point as also the original Cause which was heard 19 Nov. 1679. coming now to be heard again The Plaintiff insisted That the 100 l. per Annum if it was created the same determined by the death of Peter Bonnington But the Defendant Walthall insists to have Allowance for the said Annuity of 100 l. and Interest for the same for 40 years past whereas the Plaintiff insists That the 100 l. per Annum never was nor ought to be allowed to the Defendant for that the Deed of August 1642. under which the Defendant claims the said 100 l. per Annum the same was to be paid in the first place before debts and there being a debt due to one Chambers which the said Defendant brought in against which debt if the said Annuity had been real the Defendant would have opposed the payment of his said 100 l. per Annum being to be paid in the first place and the Defendant not demanding the said Annuity in 40 years and suffering debts to be paid before it it ought to be adjudged a Trust for Peter Bonnington and the rather for that no Consideration appears for such Annuity The Defendant insists That the Plaintiff admits it a Trust and seeks Relief only for the Surplus after Trusts satisfied and determined and this Trust being Continuing the same with Arrears and Interest ought to be paid to the said Walthall This Court on reading the said Deed Annuity not being demanded in 40 years time conceived to be a Trust saw no Consideration for granting the said Annuity and it never being demanded this Court conceived it was a Trust for Bonnington and would not charge the Estate therewith and decreed the Estate to be discharged thereof Ring contra Hele 33 Car. 2. fo 270. THe Plaintiffs Rings Bill is for the Writings and Estate of Sir Henry Hele which he claims by virtue of an Agreement made by the said Sir Henry and him wherein it was agreed that the said Sir Henry should settle his Lands in Wigborough and Bridges in Com' Sommerset on himself for life after to the Heirs of his Body with power to make his Wife a Joynture of Wigborough and to grant Estates thereout for three lives with a Remainder to the Plaintiff Ring and the Heirs of his Body if he Survived and Sir Henry died without Issue with Remainder to Sir Henry's right Heirs with power to Sir Henry to sell Pooles Tenement part of the premisses and Sir Henry was forthwith to suffer a Recovery to dock the Intail of the premisses Consideration and in consideration thereof the Plaintiff Ring was to settle his Estate in Dorset and Sommerset to the use of himself in Tail with Remainder in Tail to Sir Henry Hele with Remainder in Fee to the Plaintiff and that if either party leave Issue to be at liberty to make new dispositions as he pleased That Sir Henry imployed one Chubb and Patten to assist the Plaintiff Ring in Surveying Sir Henry's Estate and after both the Plaintiff Ring and Sir Henry went to Counsel who advised a Deed of bargain and sale of the said Estate from Sir Henry to the Plaintiff Ring which was executed between the said Sir Henry and the Plaintiff Ring and Inrolled and bears date the 26 of March 1673 That before the said Recovery the Plaintiff Ring prepared another Deed dated the 6th of May following to lead the uses thereof according to the said Agreements and a draught of a Settlement of the Plaintiff Rings Estate on Sir Henry both which being perused and approved by Sir Henry were also executed and the Deed to lead the uses of the Recovery recited the said Agreement and Inrolled Deed to make the Defendant
the same could never by any subsequent Act come into the Administration of the Estate of Sir Martin What Act amounts to an Assent of a Legacy and that every Act of the Defendant Robinson was a plain Assent to the Legacy to the Plaintiffs and it is plain the premisses were devisable and so the Plaintiffs Title plain and undoubted and the Plaintiffs ought to have a Decree against the Defendant to Account to them for the said Estate and ought to have the benefit of the said Lease The Defendant further insisted That by such imprudent Act as aforesaid he ought not to be Devested of the Estate but it ought to go to pay Sir Martins debts This Court declared That by the said Clause in the Lease to Worsam the Defendant had Assented to the Plaintiffs Legacies given them by the Will of their Father and that the Devise by the Will was a good Devise Devise of a Plantation in Barbados and that the premisses did well pass thereby and that the said Act of the Defendant Robinson being voluntary had put the Estate out of the power of the Creditors of Sir Martin or out of the power of any Administrator de bonis non of him Decree the Plaintiffs to have the benefit and the Defendants to assign and decreed the Plaintiffs to have the benefit of the premisses and of the Lease to Worsam and the Defendants to Assign their Interests to the Plaintiffs accordingly But the said Defendant desiring a re-hearing of the Cause which was on the 20th of Nov. 1682. when the Defendant insisted That the said Lease could not be an Assent for that the Defendant Robinson then claimed the premisses not as Executor or otherwise than only as Trustee for the Devisees whose Inheritance he then took the same to be and not as personal Estate upon which and other grounds the Defendant insists the said Rent and Reversion of the premisses expectant on the Determination of the Lease was and ought to be of the Testators personal Estate and to go in the ordinary course of Administration and to an Administrator de bonis non and be lyable to debts His Lordship notwithstanding what was now urged by the Defendant declared Decree by Finch he saw no cause to alter the former Decree but confirmed the same This Decree reversed by the Lord Keeper North The Decree reversed by North. and in 1683 fo 168. he heard this Cause upon the whole merits and ordered an Account And in 1686 Finch his Decree confined by Jefferys The Lord Chancellor Jefferys reheard this Cause upon the Merits and confirmed my Lord Chancellor Finch's Decree and discharged my Lord North's Decree Benson contra Bellasis 34 Car. 2. fo 848. THis Cause having received a hearing before the Lord Chancellor Nottingham 11 July 33 Car. 2. who made a Decree for excluding the Defendant Dame Dorothy Administratrix of Robert Benson the Plaintiffs Father from having any part of his personal Estate and the said Cause being heard 10 July 35 Car. 2. before the Lord Keeper North who decreed the said Defendant Dame Dorothy to retain to her own use one third part of the said personal Estate of the said Robert Benson and the said Cause being again reheard this day by the Lord Chancellor Jefferys The Case being that the said Robert Benson on his Marriage with the Defendant Dame Dorothy for the setling of a Joynture on the said Dorothy in full of all Joyntures Dowers and Thirds which she might claim out of his real and personal Estate conveyed Lands to the use of himself for life and after to the said Dorothy for life in full of all Joynturs c. as is aforesaid with this Proviso Settlement on Marriage That if the said Dorothy should after the death of the said Robert Benson have or claim to have or should recover any other part of the Lands or Tenements or any part of the personal Estate of the said Robert by the Custom of the Province of York or by any other means whatever other than what the said Robert Benson should give Bequeath or Settle upon or to her That then the Feoffees therein named should be seised of all the premisses setled in use upon the said Dorothy to the use of Sir Henry Thompson and Mr. Grayham their Executors Administrators and Assigns for 60 years to commence from the death of the said Robert if the said Dorothy should so long live Upon Special Trust that the said Thomson and Grayham should receive the profits of the premisses limited in the Joynture and they should dispose thereof to such persons and their uses as should be damnified by the said Dorothys perception of the profits of any other Lands of the said Robert or the taking or recovery of any part of the personal Estate other than what should be given or bequeathed until the respective values of the Profits or values of such Personal Estate should be fully satisfied and the residue of the said Profits to remain to the said Dorothy That the said Robert dying intestate and the said Dorothy Administring at York and in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury as Guardian to the Plaintiff Robert possessed the Real and Personal Estate prerends a Right to some part of the Personal Estate by the said Administration notwithstanding the said Marriage agreement The Lord Chancellor Nottingham declared the said Dorothy was bound by the said Marriage Agreement Marriage Agreement provided if the Wise claim any of the personal Estate by the Custom of the Province of York then the Estate to other use Decreed she is bound by the said Settlement and ought not to claim any part of the personal Estate by Finch and the Administration ought to have been granted to her and that however the same ought not any ways to avail her for that it would be contrary to the said Settlement and Agreement and that the said Dorothy ought not to claim any part of the Real Estate other than what was Setled on her by the said deed or any of the Personal Estate and decreed accordingly But the Defendant Dorothy insisted Reversed by North. That the Lord Keeper North had adjudged one third of the Personal Estate to belong to the Defendant by virtue of the said Administration and was an accrewing Right not barred by the Marriage Agreement The Lord Chancellor Jefferies Confirmed by Jeffreys on reading the said Marriage Settlement and the said two former Orders declared That the said Order for the Excluding of the said Defendant Dorothy from having any part of the Personal Estate was a just Order and ought to stand and be pursued and that the said Order of the Lord Keeper Norths before mentioned ought to be set aside and Decreed accordingly Stapleton contra Dom. Sherwood 34 Car. 2. fo 732. THat Sir Phillip Stapleton the Plain tiffs Father Bill for Distribution of the personal Estate on his Marriage with his first Wife Setled
of his Real Estate on Trustees and thereby made a provision for the Maintenance of William the younger during his Minority and therefore they opposed the Plaintiff Frances getting Administration of William the Elder The said Plaintiff Frances Whitmore insisted That by the Will of William the Elder there was no joynt devise made to the said William the Son and the Issue Male and Female of the Sisters of William the Father but a several devise to William the Son with Remainder to the Sisters Issue and that the said William the Son having an Interest vested in him by the Will of his Father and being 18 years Old when he died and he having then a power to have proved his Fathers Will the Earls Executorship during his Minority being determined might have spent or given away the said Estate in his life-time he might surely give away the same by his Will which he having done to the Plaintiff Frances she is thereby well Intituled to the same and that the remainder over to Issue Male and Female of the Sisters the Estate being purely personal is absolutely void This Court hearing several Presidents quoted Devisee Infant lived to 18 years and makes his Will and Executors and dies the Executor shall have the Legacy for that an Interest was vested in the Infant declared That by the Will of the Father there was an Interest vested in William the Son and the remainder over to the Issue Male and Female of the Sisters of William the Elder was void and that William the Son living to 18 years and making his Will as aforesaid and the Plaintiff Frances his Executrix she is thereby well intituled to the surplus of the said personal Estate and decreed the same accordingly Whitlock contra Marriot 1 Jac. 2. fo 700. THis Case being upon a Scandalous Answer Defendant ordered to pay the Plaintiff 100 I for putting in a Scandalous Answer His Lordship declared the said Answer to be very Scandalous and Impertinent and that the expressions taken by the Defendant to the Masters Report were not only more scandalous but also Malicious and that it appearing that Ryley the Defendants Solicitor had put Mr. Lynn a Councellors Hand to the Exceptions without his Knowledge This Court Ordered the said Ryley to be taken into Custody of the Messenger and declared the Answer and Exceptions were not pertinent to the Cause but meerly to defame the Plaintiff His Lordship Ordered the Defendant Marriot to pay to the Plaintiff 100 l. for his Reparation and Costs for the abuse and scandal aforesaid and the said Ryley to pay 20 l. and to stand committed to the Prison of the Fleet till payment thereof be made Ash contra Rogle and the Dean and Chapter of St. Pauls 1 Jac. 2. fo 154. THis Case is upon a Demurrer Bill to enforce the Lord of a Mannour to receive a Petition in nature of a Writ of false Judgment to Reverse a common Recovery demurred to and the demurrer allowed the Plaintiffs Bill is to inforce the Defendant the Lord of the Mannour of Barnes in Surrey to receive the Plaintiffs Petition or Bill in the Nature of a Writ of false Judgment to Reverse a Common Recovery suffered of some Copyhold Lands in the Mannour by Susan Râ—gle Widow which the Defendant Râ—gle holds under the said Recovery the Bill setting forth that Katherine Ferrers by the Will of her Husband or by some other good Conveyance was seized in Fee of Free and Copyhold Lands in Barnes formerly her said Husbands in Trust to Convey 200 l. a year thereof upon William Ferrers her Eldest Son and the said Susan his then Wife and Heirs Males of the Body of William Remainder in Tail to Thomas Ferrers the Plaintiffs Father second Son of Katherine and the Heirs of his Body Edward being obliged by Articles upon Susans Marriage with his Son William to settle Lands of that value on Susan for her Joynture That Katherine on that Trust in 1642. surrendred the premisses to the value of 100 l. per Annum to the use of the said William and Susan and the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten remainder to the Right Heirs of William which was a Breach of the Trust in Katherine in limiting an Estate Tail to Susan when it should have been but an Estate for life That William died before the Admittance leaving Issue only his Son William and in 1652. Susan surrendred to one Mitchell against whom the Common Recovery in question was then obtained wherein one Walter was Demandant the said Mitchell Tenant and Susan Vouchee to the use of her self the said Susan for life the Remainder to William Ferrers and the Heirs of his Body the Remainder to the Right Heirs of the Survivor of them the said Susan and William her Son That William the Son died soon after and Susan died in 1684. and the Plaintiffs Father Thomas being dead without Issue Male in case the Common Recovery had not been suffered the premisses would have come to the Plaintiff being the youngest Daughter to her Father as Couzen and Heir both of William Ferrers the Father and William the Son the premisses being Burrough-English and so the Plaintiff was well Intituled to prosecute the Lord of the Mannour in the Nature of a Writ of False Judgment to Reverse the said Recovery wherein there are manifest Errors and Defaults but the said Lord refuses to receive the said Petition and combine with the Defendant Rogle who is Son and Heir of the said Susan by a second Husband who pretends that his Mother Susan surviving her Son William Ferrers the premisses are discended to him by virtue of the use of the said Recovery limited to the Right Heirs of the Survivor of Susan and her Son William so the Plaintiffs Bill is to examine the defects of the said Recovery The Defendants demur for that the Relief sought by the Bill is of a strange and unpresidented Nature being to avoid and reverse a Common Recovery had in the said Mannour 30 years ago and that upon a bare Suggestion generally that the Recovery is erroneous without instancing wherein which may be said in any case The Master of the Rolls declared That as that part of the Bill which seeks to impeach or reverse the said Recovery for any errours or defects therein or compel the said Lord to receive any Petition for reversal thereof or any ways to impeach the same his Honour declared That this Court being the proper Court to supply the defects in Common Assurances and rather to support than to assist the avoiding or defeating of them and there being no presidents of such a Bill as this is he thought not fit to admit of this nor to introduce so dangerous a president whereby a multitude of Settlements and Estates depending on Common Recoveries suffered in Copyhold Courts for valuable Considerations would be avoided and defeated through the negligence or unskilfulness of Clerks and therefore conceived the said Common Recovery ought
should Marry in his Fathers life time then he should from such Marriage during his Fathers life pay the Defendant Interest for the 2500 l. And the Defendant insists That if the said Plaintiff dyed before his Father the Defendant had lost all his Mony This Cause being first heard by my Lord Finch 9 Feb. 33 Car. 2. who then upon reading the said Defezance declared That as this Cause was he could not releive the Plaintiff otherwise then against the penalty and decreed the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant 2500 l. with Interest This Cause was Re-heard by my Lord Chancellor Jeffreys the Plaintiff insisted That he had by order of this Court 5300 l. upon the said Judgment and that the late Lord Chancellor and Lord Keeper had frequently releived against such fraudulent and corrupt bargains made by Heirs in their Fathers life time and that there was not any real difference where the contract is for Mony and where it is for Goods This Court on reading the Defezance declared it fully appeared The Heir relieved against a concontingent contract made in his Fathers life time because it seemed unconscionable That these Bargains were corrupt and fraudulent and tended to the destruction of Heirs sent hither for Education and to the utter Ruin of Families and as there were new Frauds and subtle contrivances for the carrying them on so the relief of this Court ought to be extended to meet with and correct such corrupt Bargains and unconscionable practices and decreed the former order to be discharged and the Plaintiff to be restored to what he hath paid over and besides the Principal Mony and Interest Durston contra Sandys 2 Jac. 2. fo 108. THat the Defendant being Patron of the Rectory of Messenden in Com' Gloucester The Parson relieved against a Bond given for Resignation and the former Incumbent having Resigned the same the Defendant told the Plaintiff he would present him to the said Rectory worth about 100 l. per Annum and the Plaintiff coming to the Defendant for the said Presentation the Defendant drew a Bond of 300 l. penalty with Condition That the Plaintiff should resign the said Rectory at any time within six Months Notice which the Plaintiff sealed and thereupon the Plaintiff was Instituted and Inducted and was ever since a constant Resident on the place and hath been at charge of Repairs and the Plaintiff demanded Tithes of the Defendant who refuses to pay the same but gave the Plaintiff Notice to resign who Resigned the said Rectory into the Hands of the Bishop of Gloucester but the Bishop refused to accept the said Resignation and ordered the Plaintiff to continue to serve the Cure declaring That he would never countenance such Unjust practices of the Defendant but ordered his Register to enter it as an Act of Court That the Plaintiff had tendred his Resignation and that the said Bishop had rejected it That the Defendant Arrested the Plaintiff on the said Bond for not Resigning so to be relieved against the said Bond is the Plaintiffs Suit The Defendant insisted That the Plaintiff demanded more than his just due for Tithes whereupon the Defendant refused payment and that the Defendant requesting the Plaintiff to resign according to the Condition of the said Bond the Defendant Arrested him which he hopes is Just for him to do and that this Court will not hinder the prosecution and that the Plaintiff hath no colour of Relief in this Court against the said Bond and insist That the Reason of his Arresting the Plaintiff on the said Bond was his Non-residence and litigious Carriage to the Parishioners This Court declared That such Bonds taken by Patrons from their Clerks to Resign at pleasure may be good in Law yet ought to be enjoyned and damned in Equity whensoever they are used to any ill purposes And the Defendant making ill use of the said Bond his Lordship decreed That a perpetual Injunction be awarded against the Defendant to stay proceeding at Law upon the said Bond. Knight contra Atkyns 2 Jac. 2. fo 604. THat the Plaintiff is Brother and Heir as well of John as Benjamin Knight Marriage Agreement to have Monies laid out in Lands for a Joynture to such uses the Remainder to the use of the right Heirs of the Husband The Mony is not laid out the Husband dies without Issue the Mony decreed to the Plaintiff being right Heir and also Executor of the said Benjamin and the said John Knight being seised of a Plantation in Barbadoes of 1000 l. per Annum by his Will declared his debts to be paid and gave several Legacies and made his Brother Benjamin sole Executor and gave him the residue of all his real and personal Estate and the said Benjamin proved the Will and afterwards a Treaty of Marriage was between the said Benjamin and Sir Johnathan Atkyns on behalf of Frances the Daughter of Sir Jonathan upon which Treaty it was agreed that Sir Jonathan should give the said Benjamin 1500 l. as a Portion with the said Frances and for a Joynture in case Frances survived Benjamin was to add 1500 l. and the said Sums to be laid out in a purchase of Lands to be setled upon Benjamin and Fraâ—â—â—s for life and for a Joynture for Frances in lieu of her Dower and after their decease to the Issue between them and for want of such Issue to the right Heirs of the said Benjamin and until such purchase the said respective Sums of 1500 l. to be paid into the hands of the Feoffees and the increase thereof to the uses aforesaid but in regard such a purchase could not be speedily found out Sir Jonathan and Benjamin became mutually bound to each other by Bonds of 3000 l. penalty with Condition reciting That there being suddenly a Marriage to be had between the said Benjamin and Frances and for setling a future Maintenance upon Frances in case she survived and upon the Issue between them If therefore Sir Jonathan his Heirs Executors c. should pay as a Marriage portion with the said Frances into the hands of two Feoffees to be joyntly appointed between them 1500 l. which with the like Sum to be paid by Benjamin was to be laid out upon good Security real or personal and the increase thereof for the uses aforesaid and in case the whole was not provided within a short time then so much as either party should deposit and the Remainder with all convenient speed then the said Bonds to be void That such provision was sufficient and in full of any Dower the said Frances might have to Benjamin's Estate That no Feoffees being appointed the 1500 l. still remains at Interest in Sir Jonathans hands And the said Benjamin for payment as well of his own as his Brother Johns debts and legacies and to oblige his real and personal Estate for performance of the Marriage Agreement did by Deed in 1681. convey unto Trustees all his Plantations Houses
to the uses of the Articles To which the Defendant pleaded and demurred insisting the same was obtained on good Grounds and Reasons and farther insisted that since the said Dismission and before the Bill of Review the said Lamb had paid the said 1500 l. with other money unto the Defendant Atwood in Right of the said Ann his Wife who was Administratrix to Richard Kettleby and Ann the Daughter and that in consideration thereof the said Defendant Atwood had made a Settlement equivalent thereto for a Joynture for his said Wife and the Issue Male of their two Bodies with a provision for Daughters and that they had a Son then living and prayed the Judgment of this Court therein Which Plea and Demurrer was argued before the Lord Chancellor Jefferies which his Lordship over ruled and Ordered the Defendant to answer and he would hear the Cause ab origine at which hearing the Defendant Atwood and his Wife insisted That the Plaintiffs demand being only a Remote Remainder in Fee as Right Heir of the Husband was not so valuable in Interest as for a Court of Equity to Decree a purchase to be made for the Sale thereof and to take the money from the Wife and Administratrix to make that purchase when she ought to return the same as Assets or howsoever 1500 l. of the money was her own Portion and belongs to her by her Election within six Months and though according to the strict Letter of the Articles her Husband Richard Kettleby could not be said to die leaving no Issue because he had a Daughter living at the time of his death yet the Daughter dying within the six Months allotted for the Wives Election in case he had died leaving no Issue there was great equity to extend the Construction of that Clause of the Articles so far as to give her back her own 1500 l. portion The Plaintiff insisted That such Remainders in Fee have been considered by this Court and purchases decreed to be made and limited to such Right Heirs and that the 2000 l. in this Case cannot be Assets and in like Cases had been so adjudged at Common Law and in this Case the Articles have expresly provided that the money should go as the Land ought to have gone as if a purchase had been made therewith and as for the pretence of the said Defendant Anns electing 1500 l. her power of electing did never arise nor can her power be enlarged by this Court beyond the express words of the Articles nor is there reason for it in this case in regard the Articles provided that she shall have a Dower besides and the said Ann by virtue of her two Administrations hath a great personal Estate besides the 2000 l. in question This Court declared That the 2000 l. Money to be laid out in Land shall be apapplied as the Land should have been had it been purchased must go as the Lands ought to have gone in case a purchase had been made and yet the Wife had no power to elect 1500 l. part thereof because her Husband died leaving Issue and so her power of election never arose nor did any Circumstances appear to his Lordship in this Cause to induce him to inlarge the Construction of the Articles touching such power of electing beyond the express words thereof and decreed the said dismission to be reversed and that the Defendant Atwood and Ann his Wife do lay out the 2000 l. for purchasing Lands in possession in Fee simple to be setled according to the intent of the Articles And as for the Defendants the Trustees Trustees indempnified in regard they relyed upon the said dismission Signed and Inrolled for their indempnity in paying the said 2000 l. to the said Atwood at his Wife they are indempnified thereby Paggett contra Pagget 3 Jac. 2. fo 2. A Deed of Revocation Blanks filled up after the Sealing and Execution of a Deed yet good and a new Settlement made by that Deed tho' after the sealing and execution of the said Deed Blanks were filled up in the said Deed and the said Deed not read again to the party nor resealed and executed yet held a good Deed. Smith contra Fisher 3 Jac. 2. fo 641. THat Susan Beale by her Will in writing after several Legacies thereby given Money deviled to one for life with Limitations over good gave all the rest and residue of her Estate unbequeathed which consisted mostly in ready money to be put forth to Interest by her Executors and one half of the Interest to be paid to the Plaintiff Ann Cole her Sister during her life and the other half of the Interest unto the Plaintiff Ann Smith Daughter of the said Ann Cole and after her Mothers decease to have all the Interest during her life and if the said Ann Smith died without Issue of her Body then the principal of the Residue should be equally divided between the Defendants Mary Cleever and Elizabeth Farmer The Question is whether the devise over to the Defendant Clever and Farmer as aforesaid was a good devise This Court declared that the said Will was a good Will as to the limitations over to the Defendant Clever and Farmer and decreed the Executors to account accordingly Com' Dorsett contra Powle 3 Jac. 2. fo 148. 599. THis Case is Separate Maintenance where by the Deeds and Agreement before Marriage the Countess of Dorset had an absolute power to dispose of all the Personal Estate she had at the time of her Marriage with the Defendant and the proceed thereof and had by her Will and otherwise well disposed of and appointed the same to the Plaintiff and this Court Ordered the Defendant to confirm the same but as to the Rents and Profits of the Real Estate upon consideration of the several Clauses of the Deed relating to the said Estate and different penning of the same from the other Deeds that concerned the aforesaid personal Estate his Lordship declared that the said Countess had no power to dispose of the same By Indenture Tripertite Dated 28th of June 31 Car. 2. made between the Defendant Mr. Powle of the first part Sir Thomas Littleton and Charles Brett Esquire of the second part and the Countess of Dorsett on the third part reciting That the said Countess was seized in Fee of several Manor Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in England and reciting there was a Marriage intended between Mr. Powle and the Countess it was agreed that if the Marriage took effect the Countess should during the Coverture receive and dispose to her own use and at her own Will and Pleasure of all the Right and Title she had or claimed in the said Manour Lands and Premisses or in any other Manours or Lands of the Countess in England and of all the Rents and Profits thereof so as Mr. Powle his Executors Administrators and Assigns were not to intermeddle nor have any Benefit or Advantage thereby in Law or Equity but
or any Estate therein contained or to dispose of the said Honours Manours and Lands in any other sort or to any other Person or Persons and his or their Heirs or for any other purposes and the same his Mind Intent and purpose should signifie and declare in Writing under his Hand and Seal in the presence of six Credible Witnesses three whereof to be Peers of this Realm and should pay to his Trustees or any of them the Sum of Six pence with intent or purpose to frustrate or make void the said Indentures That then and not otherwise and immediately after such Signification Declaration and payment or tender of payment of 6 d. as aforesaid the said Use and Uses Estate and Estates Trusts Confidence Intents and Purposes and all and so much of the premisses whereof the Duke should make such Signification or Determination should cease Determin and be utterly void to all Intents Construction and Purposes whatsoever and that then and from thenceforth it should and might be lawful for Duke by such Writing or any other Deed or Writing Subscribed Sealed and Testified as aforesaid to declare new or other Use or Uses Trust or Trusts of all or so much of the premisses whereof the Duke should make any such Signification or Declaration or otherwise to dispose of the premisses or any part thereof at his Free Will and Pleasure any thing in the Deed to the contrary notwithstanding And for the further prevention of the mischief and Inconveniences that might attend any future or suddain Surreptitious Will Covenant which might at any time defeat his Recited Will which he declares to have made upon Mature Deliberation Covenants for himself his Heirs Executors and Administrators with the Duke of New-castle and his Trustees that he would not Revoke Annul or Discharge the said Will or any the Legacies thereby devised unless by some instrument Sealed and Executed in the presence of many and such Witnesses as are in the said Proviso specified declared and described for Credible Witnesses within the said Proviso according to the Intention Literal Sense and true meaning of the Duke expressed in the said Proviso He denies the said Deed was obtained by Surprise but that the Duke executed the same in the presence of many Credible Witnesses and that the Duke left the Deed and Will in his keeping And as to so much of the Bill as requires the Defendant to give an account of what part of the said Dukes Personal Estate came to the Defendants Hands he is Advised by the Rules of this Honourable Court that he is not Compellable to Answer thereunto for that it appears by the Plaintiffs Bill that at the time of the Exhibiting thereof the Plaintiffs were not intituled to make such demand or to have such account it thereby appearing of their own shewing that they have not proved the said Will of 87. but that the same was and still is under Controversie undetermined in the Prerogative Court whereof or as to that part of the Bill he demurs As to the Objection That it was a Concealed Will and Deed the Defendants insist that it was done silently but the Duke would have it kept Secret that he might be free from Trouble and Importunity And they insist That as to the last Will of 85. That the Duke Advised with Councel to know whether a Will made after the Settlement would avoid or impeach the Settlement was answered that it would not and that Proviso must be strictly pursued whereupon he was well satisfied and that the said Deed ought to be supported and not set aside in Equity being made upon such Meâ—â—torious Consideration of Blood Merit c. The Plaintiffs insist That the said Deed if any such being a Voluntary Settlement only that the Will of 87. is a good Revocation thereof in a Court of Equity So that the great Question was if the said Deed it being found to be valid at a Trial at Law is Revoked by the said last Will according to Equitable Intention or Construction This Cause having been Debated and Argued several times by Learned Councel and afterwards by three Judges viz. my Lord Chief Justice Holt the Lord Chief Justice Treby and Mr. Baron Powell it was agreed by them that the Deed was a good Deed well executed and not Revoked by the Will of 1687. The Lord Chief Justice Treby's Argument in short was thus In 1675. the Duke made his Will and declares in respect that the Earl of Bathe was his Kinsman and had done many Kindnesses to him and his Family the Earl should have the greatest part of his Estate and gives several Legacies to one Monck and then he makes a Deed of Settlement in 1681. tho' the Limitations by the one and the other differ but it is not made to revoke but to confirm the Will Both the Will of 1675. and Deed of 1681. do agree in giving the greatest part of the Estate to the Earl of Bathe but the Proviso in the Deed makes the dispute and then there is a Will of 1687. wherein a larger Estate is given to the Dutchess and Colonel Monck c. and desires the Honour of Potheridge may be established on the Moncks The Plaintiffs Bill is to establish the Will of 1687. and set aside the Deed of 1681. and Will of 1675. And the Deed on the Hearing of the Cause was directed to be tried and a Verdict for the Defendant and the Plaintiff hath acquiesced under it and so this Deed must be taken as a good Deed and Conveyance without any suspicion for the Right was tried and the whole Contents tried and if it were good at Law whether there be cause to set it aside in Equity is the Question He was of Opinion That the Deed was a good Deed and ought not to be impeached in this Court The Plaintiffs Arguments against the Deed are 1. Surprize 2. Concealment 3. That the Will of 1687. is a Revocation in Equity 4. That there is a Trust As to the Surprize He observed they did not make use of the word Fraud in gaining the Deed but that it was something put upon the Duke for want of deliberation He said he was not satisfied that there was any Surprize on the Duke for he was not languishing at that time under any Sickness but it was done and executed in good Company and after dinner with great Consideration both before and at that time They pretend a want of Circumstances in the execution whereas Sir William Jones was advised with before the Deed sealed and present at the time of the sealing Several other Circumstances were insisted on by the Plaintiffs but none are sufficient to set aside the Deed. The Deed of 1681. and the Will of 1675. are not inconsistent tho' they differ in the limitation of the Estate But by both the greatest part of the Estate is given to the Earl of Bathe Tho' they could not find Instructions for drawing the Deed tho' the Deed was
Roberts conveyed the Mannor and Lands in question to the Defendant Tracy for payment thereof Payment of Debts and of his other debts but before that Conveyance to Tracy the Defendant Nicholas standing ingaged as Surety for the said Roberts for several of the debts the said Roberts made the said Nicholas a Lease of the premisses for Sixty years at a Pepper-Corn Rent and such Lease being made and no care taken for satisfying the debts the Plaintiffs Sue the said Roberts for their debts so to avoid such Prosecution made the aforesaid Conveyance to Tracy in Fee upon Special Trust to pay all his debts but Tracy combining with the Defendant Astrey who had procured the said Nicholas to assign his said Lease to him Notice of Trust after Notice of the Trust contrived a conveyance of the premisses from Tracy to him the said Astrey by way of Bargain and Sale Inrolled so that Astrey pretends himself a Purchasor of the premisses from the said Thomas Roberts and not under the said Deed of Trust or Lease and Assignment and pretends the Trust is destroyed the said Conveyance being not Inrolled whereas the said Deed was well executed and the Trust accepted by which the said Deed cannot in Equity be made void until payment of the said debts The Defendant Astrey insists Deed in Trust to pay debts tho' the Creditors are not Parties and no Certainty of Debts therein appearing yet good against an after-Purchasor who had Notice of this Trust That the Deed to Tracy for the payment of debts was a void Deed as against a Purchasor there being no Creditor party or privy thereto nor any Schedule of Debts thereunto annexed and that the said Conveyance was voluntary and made only between Roberts and his Wife and Tracy and the Creditors not parties thereto and that by the said Conveyance Roberts was to have all such Mony out of the premisses from time to time as he thought fit for the livelyhood and subsistence of himself his Wife and Family and that the said Conveyance to Tracy being voluntary Voluntary Conveyance and in its nature but in Trust for Roberts and Revokable by him after the Conveyance to Astrey and Roberts having exhibited a Bill against Tracy to set aside the said Conveyance Tracy surrendred the same to Roberts who Revoked it and both Cancell'd it and afterwards Roberts and his Wife conveyed the premisses to Astrey and levied a Fine thereon But the Plaintiff insists That after the Conveyance to Tracy was made he declared he would pay the Plaintiffs debts which is proved by the Plaintiff Sir John Knight The Defendant insists One of the Plaintiffs a Witness Deposition That Sir John Knight is interessed and intituled to some of the debts in question and continued a Plaintiff throughout the Cause and is not struck out of the Bill and is but a single Witness and his Evidence denied by the Defendants Answer and therefore his deposition ought not to be read This Court declared They would see Presidents where a Conveyance made voluntarily for payment of debts and no Creditors named or appearing in any fix'd certainty of the persons and with a Proviso for the Grantor to have Maintenance out of the premisses conveyed for himself and Family without limitation of how much whether such Conveyance be Revokable by the Grantor and Grantee This Court with the assistance of the Judges were clear of Opinion That the Deed from Thomas Roberts to Tracy and the Trust thereby created were made and treated with an honest Intention to pay the debts of the said Thomas Roberts and that the same was not fraudulent Fraudulent Deed or not though no certainty of the debts appear therein but the same being made on a Trust which was a good foundation and a just and honest Consideration and none of the Creditors complaining of any fraud the same ought to be taken as a good Deed and the Defendant Astrey coming in under this Deed and having Notice of this Trust and paying the debts under it ought to receive no countenance in this Court but the Estate ought to be charged with the same in whose hands soever the same shall come and decreed the Deed of Purchase from the said Roberts to Astrey be set aside and Astrey to account for the Profits c. and the Plaintiffs and all the Creditors to be paid their debts out of the said Estate Eyre contra Good al' 21 Car. 2. fo 211. THe Bill is to be relieved against a Bond of a 1000 l. Award penalty for the performance of an Award whereby possession and profits of Lands are awarded to the Defendant The Defendant insists That there was no surprize in the said Award but the said Award was by the direction of the Plaintiffs Friends and says it ought not to be set aside which if it was it would involve many Suits and insisted That the said Award is in the nature of an Agreement and ought to be performed This Court taking Notice Cross Bills about the setting aside or confirming an Award dismist and sent to Law that the Award in question was not made by the Order of this Court but that it proceeded from the voluntary Submission of the parties two Judges being chosen by themselves who declared their Opinion That they saw no cause to decree the Award to be set aside nor on the other side to confirm it or to relieve the Plaintiff but ordered both Bills to be dismist the Plaintiff electing to go to Law This was heard by Justice Tirrel This Cause came to be Re-heard before the Lord Keeper being assisted with Judge Wild who confirmed the Order above Hale contra Acton 21 Car. 2. fo 409. THat Edward Eltonhead by his Will gave the Defendant Mrs. Gilbourne 1000 l. to be first paid after his debts besides a Share out of the dividend of the Estate when as after the making the said Will the said Edward Eltonhead and Henry Gilbourne Father-in-Law to the Defendant Mary Gilbourne before her Marriage came to an Agreement for what the said Mary should have out of the said Estate and that there should be but 1100 l. and the same was to be in full of what was intended her thereout and that the said Edward Eltonhead often so declared and in his life-time paid 500 l. and after his death his Executor paid 100 l. more in pursuance of the said Agreement Devise by Will and an Agreement about a Portion not intended several Sums so as the chief Point then controverted being whether the said Defendant Mrs. Gilbourne ought to have the 1100 l. Portion and 1000 l. Legacy mentioned in her Fathers Will or that he intended to give her any more out of his Estate than the said 1100 l. The Master of the Rolls declared That the 1100 l. ought to be in full of what the Defendant Gilbourne was and ought to have out of the said Estate and decreed accordingly This Cause came
Dower claimable by the Plaintiff and also devised the said Farms unto the Defendant Mary his Grandchild To have and to hold immediately after the death of the Plaintiff his Wife and by a subsequent Clause in the Will he devised all the Lands not therein before disposed of to the Defendant Thomas Kemp the Father for life Remainder to Thomas his Son for life with remainder over and also gave the Plaintiff his Coach Horses Plate and Jewels c. and one Third part of his clear Personal Estate And the Plaintiff conceived that she ought by the Will to have both the Rent-charge and the Farms for her life by the aforesaid devise 200 l. Rent-charge devised in lieu of Joynture and by the same Will an implicit Devise of the Lands to her Decreed she shall have only the 200 l. per Annum viz. where the same are devised to the Defendant Mary To have and to hold after the Plaintiffs death so to have the same by the said implicit Devise without Extinguishment of the said Rent charge is the Plaintiffs suit This Court declared they saw no Cause to decree both the Rent charge of 200 l. per Annum and the Farms aforesaid to the Plaintiff but the Rent charge of 200 l. per Annum to the Plaintiff only Boucher contra Antram 23 Car. 2. fo 97. THe Bill is Will. That Alice Lowman the Plaintiff Katherines late Mother did in Decemb. 1669. by Will give and dispose unto the Plaintiff Katherine a Legacy of 160 l. and made the Plaintiff who married another of the Daughters Executor The Defendant insists That the Testatrix made her Will in these words viz. Item I give unto my Daughter Katherine Boucher the sum of 160 l. for her to have the use of it during her life and her Child or Children to have it after her decease but if she happens to dye leaving no Child surviving her I Will that the said 160 l. shall be to and for the sole benefit and use of my Daughter Elizabeth Antram and her Children which Elizabeth is the Defendants Wife and the Defendant is willing to pay the said 160 l. to the Plaintiffs or either of them he being secured against the title and claim of the surviving Child or Children of the Plaintiff Katherine and if she should die leaving no Child or Children behind her then against the Title of said Elizabeth and her Children This Court decreed the Defendant to pay unto the Plaintiff 160 l. with full Interest Personal Estate devised to one for life and after to her Children and if they have no Issue the Remainder over is a void Devise as to the Remainder but as to the Clause on the Will which directs That for want of Issue by the Plaintiff Katherine the said 160 l. after her decease shall be to and for the benefit and behoof of the Defendants Wife and her Children His Lordship declared it being a Personalty is in the nature of a Perpetuity and so a void devise and therefore the Defendant nor his Wife and Children ought to have any benefit thereby but be debarred from the same and that the said 160 l. ought to be absolutely vested in and come unto the Child or Children of the Plaintiff Katherine and decreed the same accordingly Chambers contra Greenhill 24 Car. 2. fo 288. A Bill of Review brought by the Plaintiff Bill of Review because the Plaintiff can now prove a Tender and Refusal which he could not prove before dismist to Reverse the Decree in this Cause the Plaintiff would now Examine to a matter of Tender and Refusal which he could not prove before the Hearing but since the Decree signed and inrolled he can prove it The Court ordered Presidents to be searched which being produced by the Plaintiff his Lordship declared the said Presidents seemed of no weight to the Plaintiffs purpose and dismissed the Bill of Review Croster contra Wister 24 Car. 2. fo 688. THe Defendant insists Bill of Reviver The Plaintiff ought not to have brought a Bill of Reviver in this Case but to have taken out a Subpoena in the nature of a Scire facias to revive the Decree the same being signed and inrolled in the life time of the Plaintiffs Testator therefore the Defendant demurs to the said Bill The Plaintiff insists It is at the Plaintiffs election to revive the said Decree inrolled and to have Execution thereof by Bill or Subpoena in the nature of a Scire fac ' And as this Case is the whole Proceedings could not be revived by Subpaena Revivor by Bill or by Scire fac ' when proper in regard several Proceedings have been relating to Costs since the Decree which proceedings can be only revived by Bill and therefore the most proper course was to revive all things by Bill This Court held the said Bill to be well brought and held the Demurrer insufficient Stoell contra Botelar 24 Car. 2. fo 390. THat a Writ of Supplicavit of the Peace Supplicavit of the Peace on Petition and not on Motion nor any Indorsement on the back thereof yet good issued against Sir Oliver Botelar upon a Petition and Articles exhibited by the said Stoell The Defendant insists The said Writ issuing on Petition and not on a Motion in Court nor any Indorsement made on the back of the Writ as by the form of the Statute is required and but three of the said Articles are sworn to by the Articulate so it is irregular This Court on reading Presidents notwithstanding the Objections aforesaid of Botelar was fully satisfied that the Supplicavit was well granted and warranted Monnins contra Dom ' Monnins 24 Car. 2. fo 85. 178. BILL is to have the Defendant to discover Demurrer to a Bill for discovery whether the Defendant be married or not good for that if she be married it would be a forfeiture of her Estate and the Bill dismist whether she be married since the death of Sir Edmond Monnins her late Husband The Defendant demurred for that in case she was married since the death of her said Husband the same amounts to a forfeiture of her Estate and Interest in several goods and things devised to her by the Will of her said Husband to be held and enjoyed by her during such time as she should continue her Widowhood and so ought not to discover as aforesaid This Court held the Demurrer good unless the Plaintiff produced Presidents which the Plaintiff could not so the Bill was dismissed with Costs Warren contra Johnson 24 Car. 2. fo 543. THat Mary Warren Mony in Trust for the Children of I. S. it shall be for the benefit only of the Children that he then had and not born afterward the Plaintiffs Grandmother put 60 l. into the Defendants hands in trust for the benefit of the Children of Mark Warren her Son who at that time had but three Children whereof the Plaintiff was one but now hath six
Deed made by the Plaintiff Eliz. in Feb. 1666. Frandulent Deed. before her Marriage with the Plaintiff Sir Philip Howard and that the Plaintiff Sir Philip in right of his said Wife might have all her benefit and interest in or to the Estate of Sir John Baker her former Husband and receive the Rents and profits of the premisses The Case being that Sir John Baker the Father being seized in Fee of Lands by two Deeds Tripartite of Lease and Release made between himself of the one part Sir Robert Newton deceased of the second and Sir John Baker the Son and Dame Eliz. the Plaintiff and sole Daughter of Sir Robert Newton of the third part in consideration of a Marriage between the Plaintiff Dame Eliz. and Sir John Baker the Son and 4000 l. portion conveyed the same to Sir Robert Newton and his Heirs part of which Lands were for the said Dame Eliz. Joynture and Sir John Baker the Father and Dame Mary his Wife being dead Sir John the Son sold part of the premisses for payment of debts part whereof was the Joynture of Dame Eliz. and in consideration of the said Dame Elizabeth joyning in such sale and parting with her Joynture Sir John her Husband in lieu thereof and of 1500 l. to be paid to Dame Elizabeth for a Joynture house limitted the premisses unsold to the said Dame Elizabeth and the Defendants for 400 years upon Trust by Sale thereof to pay the said Dame Elizabeth the said 1500 l. and also the Rents and profits of the whole until Sale and the residue of the said premisses remaining unsold to Dame Elizabeth during her life and after to wait on the Inheritance And in 1658 the Inheritance was conveyed to Sir Robert Newton and his Heirs and he by Will devised the same to the said Dame Elizabeth for life Remainder to the first Son of the Plaintiff Sir Philip and Dame Elizabeth so the Plaintiff being intituled to the 1500 l. and the term of 400 years after the Trusts performed and so ought in right of the said Dame Elizabeth his Lady to continue in the possession of the premisses and receive the Rents and profits thereof which the Defendants refused to do pretending the term of 400 years is limited to them upon other Trusts and in particular that the Plaintiff Dame Elizabeth before her Marriage to the Plaintiff Sir Philip by her Deed of the 9th of February 1666 Assigned to the Defendants all monies then due or to be payable to her by vertue of the Deed in Trust for her benefit and to be at her disposing during the Joynt lives of her and the said Sir Philip whether she Married or continued Sole and that she should have power by writing under her Hand and Seal to dispose thereof for the benefit of her Daughter by her former Husband and that she hath disposed thereof accordingly which said Deed the Plaintiff insists is fraudulent or with power of revocation and never mentioned to Sir Phillip and that Sir Philip after his Marriage setled 500 l. per Annum on the said Dame Elizabeth for a Joynture which he would not have done if he had known or understood the said Dame Elizabeth had made such Deed or disposition as aforesaid of her former Husbands Estate and since their Marriage she desired leave of Sir Philip that she might receive the Rents and profits of the said Lands of her former Husband without mentioning the said Deed and therefore the same ought to be set aside The Defendants do insist the said Dame Elizabeth before her Marriage with the said Philip did declare to him that who ever did Marry her should have no benefit of any Estate that she had by her former Husband and that Sir Philip did agree to bar himself thereof and take no benefit thereby A Widow makes a Deed of her former Husband Estate and marries the second Husband not privy to it the Deed set aside and the second Husband to enjoy the Estate and that Sir Robert Newton looking upon the Estate as setled on his Grand-children as aforesaid and had given his personal Estate and 700 l. per Annum to the Plaintiffs and their Sons and the said Sir Robert Newton never pretended right to the said Estate or intermedled therewith that there is no reason to set a side the said Deed of the 9th of Feb. aforesaid This Court being assisted with the Judges on reading the said Deed it not appearing unto this Court that the said Sir Philip had any notice of the said Deed 9th of Feb. 1666. till after the death of the said Sir Robert Newton which was several years after the Marriage nor was privy or consented to the making of any such Deed but haveing intimation that Dame Elizabeth intended to dispose of her interest in her former Husbands Estate from such Husband as she should Marry broka off the treaty of Marriage which was afterwards brought on again by some Friends of the said Dame Elizabeth and that the said Sir Philip was induced to Marry the said Dame Elizabeth upon the hopes and confidence of having the interest she had in the Estate of the said Sir John Baker her former Husband without which he would never have married her and that the said Sir Philip never knew of the said Deed of the 9th of Feb. 1666 but the same was a fraud upon Sir Phillip and that therefore no use ought to be made thereof and decreed the said Deed of the 9th of Feb. 1666 be absolutely set aside and no use to be made thereof against the said Sir Philip or any claiming under him Poter contra Habbert 24 Car. 2. fo 591. THis Bill is to have a redemption of a Mortgage made in 1636 Mortgage by the Plaintiffes Father to one Abraham Dawes for 5000 l. and for non-payment of the Mortgage mony Sir Thomas Dawes Son and Heir of the said Abraham Dawes entred in 1641 and he and his Assigns have ever since taken the profits And the Defendant insists that the said Thomas Dawes in 49 conveyed the mortgaged premisses to Hugh Hubbert the Defendants Father for 7000 l. and that in 1641 when Sir Thomas Dawes entred there was 5000 l. due on the Mortgage besides interest so he would be charged without 350 l. per Annum for mean profits since that time and would have 6 l. per Cent. Interest for the 7000 l. from the time it appearing on the conveyance This Cause being first heard by Judge Ransford who ordered the Plaintiffs to redeem Computation of interest monies according to the Statute in force and the account for the Interest of the 500 l. to begin from 1636 the time of lending the mony and from that to 1642 Interest to be paid according to Acts then in force and from 42 to 46 Interest at 8 l. and 4 l. per Cent. The Cause being heard again by the Lord Keeper Bridgeman assisted with Judge Tyrrle Morton and Wild who ordered the
said debt nevertheless that debt ought to be made good out of the said Pincheons Estate whatever and decreed accordingly Ramsden contra Farmer al' 28 Car. 2. fo 516. THat Simon Carill was seised in Fee of Lands Lands conveyed to Trustees for payment of Debt conveyed the same to Trustees to sell and dispose thereof for performance of his Will who by his Will devised the said premisses to the said Trustees and their Heirs to pay his debts and made Elizabeth his Wife his Executrix who afterwards married Mr. Barnes and the said Trustees with the consent of the said Elizabeth conveyed the premisses to Sir John Carill and others in Trust in the said Will Trust assigned and the said Barnes after died and the said Elizabeth married one Machell and by Deed 22 Car. 1. the said Trustees Carill c. with Elizabeth conveyed the said premisses to the said Machell and his Heirs and in 1646. the said Machell with the like consent conveyed to Duncombe Heath and Baldwin and their Heirs in Trust that they after the said Simons Debts and Legacies paid should convey to the said Elizabeth and her Heirs or to such as she by Deed or Will appoint That the said Elizabeth raised Monies and paid the said Simons Debts and Legacies and performed the said Will and after the said Machell's death Elizabeth by Will 1650. devised all the said premisses to her Son John Carill for life and after his decease to the first Son of the Body of the said Son lawfully begotten or to be begotten and to his Heirs And if her said Son should not have a Son but one or more Daughters then she devised the premisses to the first Daughter of the Body of her said Son and to her Heirs That the said John Carill in the said Elizabeths life time had a Son whose Name was John who died in her life time and soon after Elizabeth died and her said Son John Carill survived her and never had any other Son after Elizabeth Machells death and the said John Carill died and left the Plaintiff Lettice his eldest Daughter and the Defendant Elizabeth his second Daughter and the Defendant Margaret his third Daughter and the said Lettice the Plaintiff claims the premisses as eldest Daughter But the Defendants Elizabeth and Margaret insist They ought to have their equal parts with the Plaintiff Lettice in the premisses and that the said Simon had not power to make such Settlement or Will but say he was only seised for life of the premisses and that Elizabeth Machell joyned in the Settlement at her Son John Carill's Marriage and if there were such a Will of the said Elizabeth Machell yet the said John Carill had a Son named John Carill Construction of the words of a Will who was Born after the death of the said Elizabeth Machell and lived some time after her death without Issue and by the words of the Will the Trust is determined This Court not being satisfied as to the Birth and death of the said John Carill directed a Tryal on this Issue whether John Carill Grandson of Elizabeth Machell dyed during the Life of the said Elizabeth Machell or after her decease That upon a Tryal on the said Issue it was found that the said John Carill the Grandson outlived the said Elizabeth Trusts determined and therefore the Defendants insist that the Trust limited by the Will of the said Elizabeth Machell is fully determined This Court declared they saw no cause to relieve the Plaintiffs Bill in this matter and so dismist the Bill accordingly Salter contra Shadling 28 Car. 2. fo 66. THat Bryan late Lord Bishop of Winton being possest of the Mannor of Pottern by Lease from the Bishop of Salisbury Will. made to Sir Richard Chaworth in Trust for the said late Bishop of Winton by his Will Devised 200 l. per Annum should be paid out of the profits of the said Lease to William Salter the Plaintiffs late Husband his Nephew during his Life and that the Estate in Law in the said Lease should continue in Sir Richard Chaworth during his Life and the Surplusage of the profits he Devised to the said William Salter to whom he also Devised the Lease after Sir Richard Chaworths death and made Sir Richard Chaworth and others Executors who consented to the said Devise and about 16 Car. 2. William Salter made his Will and as to his Interest in Pottern he devised the same to Trustees that they should permit the Plaintiff to receive the profits during her Widdow-hood on Condition she renewed the Term to 21 years Construction upon the words of a Will once in seven years and if the Plaintiff should Marry or dye then he declared the profits of the Premises to go to his two Daughters Ann and Susanna and the Survivor of them and their Heirs and after their Deaths without Heirs of their Bodies then to his right Heirs and Devised all the rest of his Personal Estate should be to his Executors and Trustees for the benefit of his said Daughters and made the Plaintiff and the said Trustees Executors That the said two Daughters are since dead intestate and the Plaintiff being their Administrator is Intituled to the whole Term and Trust of the said Lease of Pottern as Administrator to her said two Daughters according to the said William Salters Will and the true Exposition thereof the same being devised in manner as aforesaid The defendant Charles Cleaver the Infant being Eldest Son and Heir of Dame Briana Cleaver deceased who was one of the Sisters and Coheirs of the said William Salter and the Defendant Stradlings Wife being his Sister and Coheir insist that according to William Salters Will and for that no present interest in Pottern was Devised to his two Daughters but only Contingent possibility of Interest in case the said Plaintiff should Marry or dye neither of which having since hapned and the said Daughters being since dead the Interest and Term in Pottern ought to come to them as Heirs to the said William Salter and not to the Plaintiff as Administratrix to her two Daughters the rather for that they consented to a decree for Sale of Lands which would have come to them as Heirs at Law to preserve Pottern from Sale for the payment of William Salters debts This Court declared that according to William Salters Will and the disposition therein made of Pottern the whole Interest of the said Term and Trust therein was well passed in the Plaintiff and that the Heirs of Salter can have nothing to do therewith nor have any Interest therein and Decreed the Plaintiff to enjoy the same against the Defendants Still contra Lynn al' 28 Car. 2. fo 195. Bill is to be relieved for 123. Acres of Land THat Philip Jacobson Deceased Settlement being possest of a Capital Messuage or Tenement and Lands by Lease from the Crown Dat. 13 Car. 1. for the Term of 60
the Mannor of Warter in the County of York whereby he made himself but Tenant for life the Inheritance vesting in the Plaintiff his Eldest Son and Sir Phillip had Issue by his first Wife the Plaintiff his Eldest Son Robert his Second Son and Mary who Marryed the other Plaintiff the Lord Merrion That Sir Phillip in 1647. by Will devised to his said Son Robert a Rent charge of 40 l. per Annum to be issuing out of the said Mannour and afterwards the said Robert died and the Defendant Dorothy his Relict Administred to the said Roberts Personal Estate so the Plaintiffs Bill is to have Distribution of his Personal Estate The Defendant Dorothy insisted That she as Widow of her said late Husband Robert by the Custom of York is Entituled to a Moiety of the said Personal Estate and by the late Act for setling Intestates Estates the said Defendant is Intituled to the other Moiety and insisted That Sir Phillip having Issue by several Venters which are yet alive or their Representatives they are equally intituled with the Plaintiff Stapleton This Court declared a Distribution of the said Personal Estate according to Law to be made amongst the Plaintiff Stapleton and the Child of the Lord Merrion as also the Brothers and Sisters of the said Robert as well as those of the half-Blood as those of the whole Blood and their respective Lineal Representatives who are to be called into the account And as to the point whether the Lord Merrion and his Child have the Right to his Wives share of the Estate a Case is to be made That the Master to whom the account of the Intestates Personal Estate was referred 36 Car. 2. fo 375. hath allowed to the Defendant Dorothy the Administratrix a Moiety of the said Estate of the said Intestates dying without Issue and hath Distributed the other Moiety amongst the Intestates Kindred Brothers and Sisters Whereas by the Custom of the Province of York she is not only to have a clear Moiety of the Personal Estate of her said Husband so dying without Issue after Debts c. but by the late Statute for setling Intestates Estates she is to have a Moiety of the other Moiety The Plaintiff insists That there was no Colour for the Defendant to have a Moiety of the remaining Moiety the said Statute leaving the Custom as it was without Addition Diminution or Inlargement but the Widow was to have only a Moiety and the other Moiety to be Distributed amongst the next of Kin. This Court for the further satisfaction The Custom of the Province of York Certified by the Arch-Bishop ordered the Lord Arch-Bishop of the Province of York to testifie when a man dies Intestate within that Province without Issue after his Debts c. paid how the Residue is to be Distributed by the Custom of the Province The Bishop certified That in such Cases as aforesaid the Widow of the Intestate by the Custom of the Province had usually allotted to her one Moiety of the clear Personal Estate and the other Moiety hath been Distributed amongst the next of Kin to the Intestate and that had been the constant practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts at York The Plaintiff insisted That the Custom of that Province is excepted out of the Act of Parliament and if it were within the Act it ought to have the more favourable construction on their part because it was made in favour of them and not of the Widow and Administratrix who before the said Act usually went away with the whole Estate unless more particular instances prevented This Court declared The Widow by the Custom of the Province of York shall have the Moiety but not another Moiety by the Act of Settlement of Intestates Estates They could not expound the Act to give the Defendant more than a Moiety that being the proportion allotted to her by the Custom and also by the Act if it had not been a Case within the Custom which Custom is confirmed because it appoints the same kind of Distribution with the Act and it would be a strein to give her more than a Moiety part by the Custom and part by the Act and refers to the Masters Report made in this Cause Coventry contra Hall 34 Car. 2. fo 330. THat Sir Thomas Thynn Bill for mean profits Father both of Sir Henry Frenderick Thynn and Sir James Thynn conveyed on Sir Henry Frenderick and his Heirs Males of his Body expectant after the decease of him the said Sir Thomas the Mannour of Hempsford and other Lands and soon after dyed and the said Sir Henry Frederick possessed the said premisses but Sir James Thynn pretending the said Conveyance was Defective Sir Henry Frederick in Oct. 1650. obtained a decree that the said Sir Henry Frederick and the Heirs of his Body should enjoy the said premisses against the said Sir James Thynn and his Heirs according to the intent of the said Settlement That Sir James Thynn insisting That Sir Thomas was but Tenant for life and not Seized in Fee of the premisses having suffered Recoveries so that the Freehold was in the said Sir James or some other for his use by virtue whereof he received the profits which Sir Henry Frederick ought to have received That Sir Henry not being able to recover the said mean profits at Law by reason of the defect in the said Conveyance which is now supplyed and setled by the said decree and Act of Parliament so that the said Sir Henry hath the right to the said profits and writings So the Bill is to be relieved for the same and to have an account thereof The Defendant insisted That there ought to be no account of the mean profits the demand thereof being very old and is grounded on a decree in a former Cause whereby a defect in a Conveyance under which the Plaintiff claims was supplyed and there is no provision in the said decree for mean profits though the Bill originally was such as this Court might have decreed mean profits and when the Decree was made it was not granted nor any farther relief than only possession and the possession hath been so unconstantly in any one person that it is very difficult especially after so long time against an Executor that is no way privy to the accounts of the Testator The Plaintiff insisted That though the demand on the decree is Antient and a prosecution hath been for the same ever since and the Right being determined the Plaintiff ought to have an account of the mean profits as the Consequences of that Right though the Original Bill might pray an account and the decree be silent as to that point This Court declared That considering this case as if there were no Act of Parliament the Plaintiff hath a right to demand an account upon an equity that ariseth on the Marriage Agreement and Settlement made in pursuance thereof notwithstanding the length of time for that the Plaintiff
Submission of the parties and the Reference not directed by this Court the Award was void and ought not to be performed and demurred by the Plaintiffs Will. The Master of the Rolls ordered Presidents and upon reading of the Award declared he saw no Cause to relieve the Plaintiff but dismissed the Bill This Cause was Re-heard by the Lord Chancellor Jefferies who declared he saw no cause why the said Award should be impeached but it was fit that the same should be performed being in part executed and assented unto and decreed the same to stand confirmed and the Defendant to perform the same REPORTS OF CASES Taken and Adjudged in the COURT of CHANCERY In the Reign of King JAMES II. Attorney General contra Vernon 1 Jac. 2. fo 388. THE scope of the Information in this Cause being to set aside Letters Patentsobtained by the Defendant Vernon Information against Patentees of Needwood Forest in the Names of the Defendants Browne and Boheme in nature of a Grant or Contract under the Seal of the Dutchy of Lancaster of the Honour of Tudbury and Forest of Needwood at a great undervalue wherein his late Majesty was surprized His Majesties Attorney General by Information setting forth That his late Majesty being seised in Fee in right of his Crown as parcel of his Dutchy of Loncaster of the said Honour of Tudbury of the value of 2000 l. per Annum and also of the benefit of Timber Trees Woods c. of the value of 30000 l. whereon the Defendants commit Wast pretending Title to the premisses by Grant of the Crown from his late Majesty Grant obtained per Surprize whereas such Grant was unusually obtained and by surprize for that about Sept. 1683. for some small Sum and getting some interest in Ground at Sheerness to the value of about 500 l. and endeavouring to value the Lands at Sheerness at 3000 l. in October following they did prefer a Petition for the said Grant and obtained a Reference thereof to Sir Thomas Chichley Chancellor of the Dutchy and hastily obtained a Report in November and within two days after the Report a Warrant was signed for passing the Grant though endeavours were used to stop it by Command from his late Majesty and the Lords of the Treasury the 19th of the same November and particular Application made to the Chancellor of the Dutchy he then denying he knew thereof and it was not known that any Grant was thereof till the particular thereof was found in a Scriveners Shop about a Month after the passing thereof contrary to the course of the Dutchy there being no such Grant yet Registred or Inrolled to the prejudice of his Majesty and the Nobility and others having dependency there the said Defendant having given untrue Particulars of the most profitable Matters thereof to the value of some Thousand pounds wherefore the said Grant ought to be delivered up to be Cancelled The Defendant Vernon insisted That the Defendants having long Leases of the said premisses unexpired of a great yearly Rent and also Offices within the premisses upon which hath been expended great Sums of Mony in Buildings and Repairs whereby his Majesties antient Rent hath been much increased and the Defendant Vernon being informed of some endeavours used to obtain the Reversion in Fee of the said premisses he petitioned his Majesty in September 1683. in the Name of the other Defendant Browne to prevent a Merger of the said Leases and on the 29th of the said September obtained a Reference to the Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster and 19 November 1683. the said Chancellor made a Report and thereupon 20 Nov. 1683. his Majesty signed a Warrant dated the 19th of the same Month authorizing the Chancellor to make a Grant of the premisses That thereupon the Defendant Vernon by Deed 20 Nov. 1683. between his late Majesty of the one part and himself on the other did sell unto his Majesty all those 4â— Acres in the Isle of Sheppey whereon his Majesty's Fort of Sheerness is built That in consideration thereof and 7000 l. paid by the Defendant for his Majesty's use his said Majesty 21 Nov. granted unto the Defendants Browne and Boheme iâ— Trust for the Defendant Vernon all the said premisses And the said Defendant Vernon insists That the said Patent passed regularly and is effectual in Law and ought not to be impeached the impeachment whereof being in derogation of other his Majesties Grants and the Consideration is equivalent to the Grant his Majesties Favour being an Ingredient thereunto and the premisses mightily over-valued by the Surveyor and the said Patent was leâ—â— with a Scrivener whereon to raise 10000 l. but the same was not thought a sufficient Security for such a Sum That the Defendant Browne for 10300 l. hath purchased the said premisses of Vernon and insists on the said Grant as good in Law and is advised that this Court will be tender in examining the Methods of the passing the said Grant when it hath received the allowance of the proper Officer by having the Seal affixed to it His Majesties Council insisted Information by English Bill proper to relieve against a Patent Patent not Reversable per Scire facias That this Suit is properly brought in this Court by English Bill to be relieved against the said Grant or Patent and that no Scire facias can be brought in the Dutchy or in this Court for the Reversal thereof and if a Bill or Information as this case is should not be admitted his Majesty would be in a worse condition than any of his Subjects considering the great over-value and the quick hasty and unusual manner of passing the Pattent contrary to all Patents of that nature it passing neither by Privy Seal Privy Signet or any immediate Warrant but the Chancellor of the Dutchy acted therein in all Capacities and passed the Grant after Notice and fresh pursuit by his late Majesty for recalling the same and express Prohibition that no Mony should be received This Court assisted with several Judges were all clear of Opinion That this Suit was proper by English Bill and that the Patent could not be annulled or made void by Scire facias or otherwise at the Common Law and the Bill being to have remedy for his Majesty against Fraud Surprize and Deceit which their Lordships declared was made out and that the King was most grosly deceived and abused as to the value and that therefore his Majesty ought to be relieved in this Court or otherwise he would be remediless and so in a worse condition than any of his Subjects in a case of this Nature and this Court with the said Judges taking into consideration the excessive over value which was offered to be made good by the Surveyor the surprize and deceit and the speedy and unusual passing the said Grant and that no Mony was paid till the Grant was ordered to be stopt and directions for this prosecution which was before Livery
Countess who conceives her self to be Intituled as Grandmother to an equal share with any of his Brothers and Sisters and insists That the said Lady Katherine dying within less than a year after the Intestate Thomas Wentworth she was not by the said Statute Intituled to any share of the said Personal Estate her supposed Right being meerly a thing in possibility and Expectation which vanished by her death within the year And the Defendants insist That the Countess before her Marriage with the Plaintiff the Earl viz. in 1673. granted Lands to Trustees for 21 years if she so long lived in Trust out of those Lands and other Lands late of Sir John Wentworth to pay her 200 l. per Annum till the said Thomas was 12 years of Age for his Maintenance and after till 21 so much as the said Trustees thought fit and the Residue for the benefit of the said Thomas his Heirs and Assigns That the said Defendants with the Countesses Approbation out of the moneys arising by the said Trust made several Purchases in their own Names and declared the Trust thereof for the said Thomas Wentworth and his Heirs and the Defendant Dame Dorothy made other Purchases in her own Name with the said Thomas his momey which she received in Trust for him and insists that those moneys so invested in those Purchases in the life-time of the said Thomas in Trust are not nor at his death were any part of his Personal Estate but the Lands descend to the Defendant John Wentworth as his Heir That Sir John Wentworth died in 1671. and left a great Personal Estate which came to the Earl and Countess on their Marriage and that Sir John Wentworth died Intestate within the Province of York the Defendant John Wentworth being his younger Son unpreferred became Intituled to a third part of his Estate equally with his Widow by the Custom of that Province and by force of the said Act for setling Intestate Estates Thomas and John became Intituled with her to the other third part The Defendants farther insist That the said Earl is not nor can be Intituled to any share of the said Thomas Wentworths Personal Estate for that the Act of Parliament is only Authoritative and directive to the Ordinary and Administrator and there are no vesting words therein whereby to Intitle the Lady Katherine to a share of the Estate and that she dying before any distribution and within the 12 Months allowed to that purpose her share fell among her Surviving Brothers and Sisters and however if she was Intituled to any part it could only be to a half-share she being but of the half-blood to the deceased and that so in the Course of the Civil Law But the Plaintiffs insisted The said Act explained That though the Act of Parliament be only Authoritative and directive to the Judge and yet such Authority and direction in an Act of Parliament doth by Judgment and Implication of Law vest an Interest in the Wife Children and Kindred for whose benefit the Act was made as much as if it had been a bequest of residuum bonorum for that the Act appoints all Ordinaries whatsoever on granting any Administration to take the Bond prescribed thereby one Clause of the Condition whereof is to pay the surplus that shall be found due on such Administration account to such Person or Persons as the Judge by his Decree or Sentence to that Act shall limit and appoint and then appoints the Ordinaries and Judges repectively to order and make just and equal distribution of such surplus amongst the Wife Children or next of Kin according to the Rules and Limitations therein and the same to Decree and settle which is the very Title of that Act and that tho' there be Twelve months time given for distribution yet that is only with respect to Creditors and no way hinders the vesting the surplus in such persons as are appointed to have it immediately upon the Trustees death any more then a Legacy to be paid in futuro and that it is generally a much longer time before an Intestates Estate can be got in and the surplus known and if the Executors or Administrators of persons dying in the mean time shall lose their shares it will elude the intent of the Act of Parliament which was made for the benefit of the Wife and Children and Kindred generally And it will lye much in the power of an Administrator by retarding his Account to prevent another of his share nay it will be mischevous to the Administrator and those who shall claim distribution for that if no Interest be vested in any before an actual distribution by Decree or Sentence then no distribution can be by Agreement or Consent of the Parties nor let the occasions or necessities of any claiming distribution be never so great can any Administrator satisfie the payment of any part of the Estate till such Sentence or Decree made which the Law makes could never intend and if no Interest be vested by that Act then hath this Court no Jurisdiction to intermedle therewith for that the Act only directs the Ecclesiastical Judge Distributions according to the Act for setling Intestates Estates are made in Chancery as well as in the Ecclesiastical Courts to make a Decree or Sentence for distribution but the same vesting an Interest and there being no Negative Words that a distribution shall be sued for there and elsewhere several distributions have been made in this Court as well in the Lord Chancellor Finch his time and the Lord Keeper North's time as since and that the same is looked upon as a Point setled and that it is the constant course of the Ecclesiastical Courts to Decree the shares of any persons dying before distribution to the Executors or Administrators of such persons so dying and not to the Surviving person claiming distribution and this Act was intended as the Will of every Intestate and the Wife Children and Kindred respectively to be as well intitutled as if the Intestate had made a Will and so Bequeathed the same amongst them and for the half Blood and whole Blood the same hath made no distribution between them but appointed the distribution to be equal and that for the Monies alleadged to be invested in Lands such Purchases do not alter the nature of the Case for that Thomas being a Minor could not give Authority or Consent for it and he might have discended to it when at Age and dying in Minority the same still remains part of his personal Estate and the Land is but in the nature of a Mortgage or additional Security for it This Court declared they saw no cause or colour to Decree any share for the Desendant Dame Dorothy and conceives her no way intituled to any but as to the Plaintiff the Lord Winchelsey This Court declared they were fully satisfied that the said Act of Parliament doth immediately upon the death of an Intestate If any of the next
not to be shaken yet nevertheless the Case being new and great referred it to the Opinion and Determination of the Lord Chancellor His Lordship held the Demurrer good and Order to stand Skinner contra Kilby 2 Jac. 2. fo 72. THe Bill is to have the benefit of a Bequest by the Will of Robert Kilby The Will being viz. Will. If my Son Richard Kilby should behave himself towardly and undertake the payment of my debts and Legacies then he to have all my Lands in Tredington The Son Devisee of Lands upon good behaviour for his mis-behaviour decreedagainst him if he behave himself otherwise or to neglect to pay my debts and Legacies as aforesaid then he to have but 5 s. and left it to the direction of his Executrix Jane Kilby the Defendants Mother and also Mother of the said Richard Kilby the Plaintiffs Father That the said Richard waving the said Devise made to him and neglecting the payment of his said Fathers debts and Legacies the said Jane undertok and paid the same being intituled by the said Will and by her Will Bequeathed to the said Defendant the premisses This Court upon reading the said Will of Robert Kilby the Testator which being as is aforesaid declared that according to the said Will the said Jane was well intituled to the premisses and that the Defendant ought to enjoy the same and could not relieve the Plaintiff but dismiss the Bill Nayler contra Strode 2 Jac. 2. fo 473. THe Surrender of a Copyhold Estate by an Infant of 4 or 5 years of Age allowed of by this Court Surrender of a Copyhold by an Infant of 5 years of Age. Yet the Lord of the Mannor insisted he never heard of any admittance in that Mannor at such an Age. Cloberry contra Lymonds 2 Jac. 2. fo 1069. LAnds extended in 1 Car. 1. and held in Extent and a Bill exhibited to redeem and being not redeemed the Bill dismist in 16 Car. Upon the buying the Equity of Redemption of Lands in Extent Account decreed from the time of the purchase 1. and afterwards he who had the Extent by virtue of the said dismission sold the said premisses to the Defendant But the Plaintiff having since bought the Equity of Redemption seeks a Redemption This Court notwithstanding the dismission and length of time ordered an account from the time of the Purchase but no account from any time before but the profits to go against the Interest to that time Newte contra Foot 2 Jac. 2. fo 695. THe Defendant insists Depositions suppressed because the Sollicitors Clerk in the Cause did write as a Clerk in the Execution of the Commission That the Depositions in this Cause are irregulerly taken and ought to be suppressed for that Mr. Samuel Vnderwood who was Clerk to Mr. Edward Gibbon Sollicitor for the Plaintiff in this Cause did write as Clerk in Execution of the said Commission under the said Commissioners and the said Vnderwood confessed the same and solicited the Matter for which Reasons the Defendants Commissioners refused to joyn in the Execution of the said Commission it being of great mischief for Solicitors or their Clerks to be privy to the taking of Depositions in such Causes as they Solicite This Court was well satisfied that the said Depositions were for the Reasons aforesaid irregularly taken and doth order that the same be hereby suppressed and that the Six Clerks Certificate for the regular taking of the Depositions be discharged Griffith al' contra Jones al' 2 Jac. 2. fo 353. THat Peter Griffith being seised in Fee of Lands Will. and possest of a personal Estate of 20000 l. in 1681. by his Will devised to his Brother the Plaintiff 200 l. to the Plaintiff Shonnet Price and Dorothy Parry the Daughters of his Sister Shonnet 150 l. apeice c. and to the Sons and Daughters of his Brother and Sisters not mentioned by name in his Will 10000 l. equally between them which said Legacy doth belong to the Plaintiffs John Lloyd and Alice Williams being the only Nephew and Neece not named in the Will and the overplus of his Estate he obliged the Executors should pay and and distribute amongst his Brothers and Sisters Children and Grandchildren and the rest of his poor Kindred according to his Executors discretions and the Plaintiff claims the overplus of the said Estate as being all the Brothers and Sisters Children and Grandchildren of the Testator and poor Kindred that can take by the Will The Defendants the Executors insisted That they conceive the distributing and apportioning the said surplus is left to them by the express words of the Will and that they ought to distinguish the Grandchildren of the Testators Brothers and Sisters whose Fathers and Mothers were dead before the Testator and had no particular Legacies by the Will and consider the Condition and number of Children of the said Kindred and give most to those that most want and conceived that such of the Plaintiffs as have particular Legacies ought to have but a small one if any part of the surplus and the Defendants crave the directions of this Court how far the words Poor Kindred shall Extend to what Degree of Relation This Court decreed Legacies to Poor Kindred how far to be extended That the surplus of the said Estate be distributed to and amongst the Testators Brothers and Sisters Children and Grandchildren and as to the rest of the poor Kindred according to the Act of Parliament for distributing Intestates Estates and no further and to be distributed in such shares and propotions as the Executors in their discretions should think fit and whereas there are debts owing to the Testators Estate and the debtors poor but propose to pay as far as they are able This Court decreed Poor Debtors to the Testator who left a great Estate the Executors left at liberty to compound any debt That the Executors be at liberty to compound any debt owing to the said Estate if they should think fit Creditors on Judgments and Bonds decreed Creditors on Judgment and Bonds decreed to redeem Mortgages to redeem Mortgages towards satisfaction of their debts fo 843. Bernry contra Pitt 2 Jac. 2. fo 373. THe Bill is That the Plaintiffs Father being only Tenant for life of a real Estate which after his death would come to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiffs Father allowing the Plaintiff but a small subsistance and the Plaintiff borrowed of the Defendant 1000 l. in 1675 and entred into Judgment of 5000 l. Defezanced for the payment of 2500 l. after the Plaintiffs Fathers death which hapned in 1679. The Defendant insists That he lent the Plaintiff 1000 l for which the Plaintiff gave Bond and Warrant of Attorny to confess Judgment to the Defendant of 5000 l. which was Defezanced that in case the Plaintiff should out-live his Father and in one Month after his Fathers death pay the Defendant 2500 l. and if the Plaintiff