Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	case_n	defendant_n	plaintiff_n	1,918	5	10.3007	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B02613	The case of Sir John Edwards, Knight, appellant from a decree made in the high and honourable Court of Chancery, in a case there depending, wherein Mary Howard, widow, was plaintiff, and the appellant was defendant : humbly offered to the consideration of the right honourable the Lords spiritual and temporal in Parliament assembled.		1680 (1680)	Wing C994; ESTC R170980	2,526	1

The CASE of Sir JOHN EDWARDS Knight Appellant from a Decrcee made in the High and Honourable Court of Chancery in a Cause there Depending wherein Mary Howard Widow was Plaintiff and the Appellant was Defendant Humbly Offered to the Consideration of the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled HENRY HOWARD Esq being seiz'd in Fee of the Honour of Cl●ne the Mannor of Bucknill and of other Mannors and Lands in the County of Salop the 19th day of January 1669 after his Marriage with the Respondist did settle part of the Premises of the value of 500 l. per. ann upon her for her Joynture and the 7th day of December following did make her a voluntary additional Settlement of other Lands worth if in possession 1500 l. per annum more Henry Howard afterwards viz. the 10th day of July 1671 sold to the Appellant for a full and valuable Consideration really paid the Reversion after three Lives of three Tenements in Bucknill which unknown to the Appellant were in the aforesaid voluntary and additional Settlement and of two small Tenements in the Forrest of Clone which were not in that voluntary additional Settlement All which said Premises were an absolute purchase without any power of Redemption either by Word or Writing Which Premises so purchased by the Appellant to save charges and to protect them by Collateral security from incumbrances were included in the same conveyance with other Lands about that time contracted for by one Mr. Edward Powell with the same Mr. Howard but the Contracts were several and the Tenements purchased by the Appellant were by the said Powell immediately to be conveyed to the Appellant and his Heirs and a Draught for that purpose was then prepared and agreed on and afterwards was executed by the said Powell The said Mr. Powell voluntarily gave Mr. Howard a Note to admit him to re-purchase the Premises by him the said Powell contracted for and purchased Mr. Howard after he had supplied his occasions with the said Purchase-money preferr'd his Bill in Chancery against Powell and the Appellant to have Redemption from them both of the Lands by them severally purchased upon pretence that the said Note given by Powell did amount to an agreement that Mr. Howard might re-purchase the same and Mr. Howard would therein have included the Lands purchased by the Appellant But it appearing that the Appellants purchase was a distinct purchase from Powells and so not to be affected with Powell's Note That Bill was dismist and then Mr. Howard exhibited a new Bill against Powell alone to redeem the same who submitting thereto the 6th of July 26 Car. 2 di the same was decreed accordingly but without prejudice as to the Premises purchased by the Appellant In November 1675 Mr. Henry Howard dyed and the Appellant having as he was and is advised an absolute and irredeemable Estate in the Premises and conceiving himself at peace and quiet did in consideration of a Marriage and Portion received with his new Wife absolutely settle the said Lands in Bucknill inter alia upon Sir Edward Harley Knight of the Bath and Robert Beale Esq in Trust for the Appellants Wife for part of her Joynture and afterwards to the Use of the Heirs Male of their two bodies and charged with Portions for younger Children That the Respondist May Howard Relict of the aforesaid Henry Howard deceased claiming part of the Premises as being comprized in her said volantary additional Settlement made as aforesaid brought her Bill in Chancery against the Appellant for a Re-conveyance of all the whole Premises and a Redemption thereof though absolutely bought and purchased by him and setled for a valuable consideration as aforesaid on pretence that the Appellants having accepted of a conveyance from Powell and being privy to Powells giving the aforesaid Note and not opposing the same ought to be affected thereby Whereas 1st The Appellants Purchase and Contract was distinct from that of Mr. Powells the Purchases were treated for severally and severally paid for 2ly Mr. Powell only agreed to admit Mr. Howard to re-purchase what he himself had contracted for and so the Appellants purchase not comprehended in that Note 3ly The Premises purchased by the Appellant not being included in Powells Note therefore though the Appellant was present when the Note was given yet had he no reason to oppose it or to desire that to be excluded which in truth was never included therein 4ly The Note given by Mr. Powell was voluntary and he hath sworn expresly it was so and that it was to extend only to his own purchase and not to the Appellants 5ly To make a Construction that the Appellants Lands should be redeemable because Powell so agreed for his own is not only against the truth but a construction contrary to all common sense and understanding For can any man think it probable that the Appellant would part with his money and take only a security of a dry Reversion after three Lives in being for the same Out of what could he expect to be paid his Interest It would be worthy of enquiry Whether ever any man lent his money upon a dry Reverson after three Lives without something in possession that might answer his Interest or some Collareral security for the same 6ly The money paid by the Appellant was the full value of the Reversions considering the Lives then in being 7ly The Appellant on presumption that this absolute purchase of his was only a Mortgage is decreed to re-convey the same free from incumbrances which is absolutely impossible for him to do he having for a valuable consideration settled the same on his wife and Children as aforesaid so that it is out of his power to perform the Decree and consequently his Person decreed to perpetual Imprisonment 8ly The Respondist is admitted to a Redemption of all the Five Tenements aforesaid whereas were the Appellants title but a Mortgage yet hath the title only to three of them none of them being in her Joynture and there being but three of them in her additional voluntary Settlement the equity of Redemption of the other two if redeemable at all being in another person viz. Mr. Walcott who purchased Clone whereof those Tenements are a part who is neither Plaintiff nor Defendant and to whose prosecution the Appellant is equally lyable 9ly The Respondist is relieved by the said Decree upon a voluntary conveyance against the Appellant who is a Purchasor for a full and valuable consideration and upon account stated by the Master in Chancery according to the Respondists own values in proofs the money now due to the Appellant is more then the Reversions are worth if now to be sold although several of the Lives are dead since the purchase so that the Decree is purely obtain'd for vexation and can be in no case for the Respondists advantage yet Decrees an impossibility to be performed and if not performed the Appellants person is lyable to perpetual Imprisonment as aforesaid 10ly That the Appellant having the conveyance of the Reversion in his own Name his Estates for three Lives are Merg'd which is an evidence of an absolute Purchase not a Mortgage All which it most humbly submitted to the Wisdom and grave Consideration of this Supreme Fountain of Justice your Lordships in Parliament Assembled And the Appellant humbly prays Relief according to Justice and that the Decree aforesaid may stand reversed