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
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
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
is born since the Will that Child shall have a share the same being given to them by Name and as to the Real Estate it being ordered by the Testator to be added to his Personal for increase of all his Childrens Portions and the said Sarah being born before he died the same to be Sold and divided amongst the five Children viz. Benjamin Samuel Mary Hannah and Sarah equally Sale contra Freeland 32 Car. 2. fo 272. THat Thomas Freeland the Defendants great Grandfather Will. Settlement Revocation being Seized of the premisses did by his Will in writing devise the same to Nicholas his Son for life only and afterwards to his Grandson John late Husband of the Defendant Frances and Father of the Defendant John and his Heirs for ever That the said Thomas and Nicholas being dead John the Grandson entred and for 300 l. Mortgaged the premisses to the Plaintiff and not long after the said John on confidence of the power he had to dispose of the premisses made his Will and the Defendant Frances Executrix and devised the premisses to be Sold for payment of his Debts But the Defendant insists That the said Thomas the great Grandfather had no power to dispose of the same premisses and if he had he did not pursue it regularly for that he had made a Settlement of the premisses in 1651. upon one Henry Weston and his Heirs to the use of him the said Thomas for life and after to Nicholas his Son for life and after to the use of the said John his Grandson and the Heirs of his Body with remainder over and that the Defendant John the Grandson by virtue of the said deed as Heir in Tail claims the premisses whereas if any such deed were it was with a power of Revocation by any Writing or Will in writing to be executed in the presence of three Witnesses and was revoked by his making his said Will in the presence of three Witnesses though one of them then present did not subscribe the same That the said John the Grandson had the full power of the Estate and the grant made to the Plaintiff ought to be supported in Equity being for valuable consideration though the power was not litterally pursued in the Circumstances of three Witnesses the intent of the Person appearing as sufficiently by two Witnesses as if there were three and submit to the Judgment of this Court The Plaintiff farther insisting That the said Thomas the great Grandfather takes notice in the preamble of his Will of the power by him reserved upon the said Settlement to make any alteration thereof during his life and then by the said Will deviseth the premisses to the said John his Grandson in Fee and he Mortgages to the Plaintiff and there is no Colour but the Defendants ought to redeem or be foreclosed This Court it appearing that there was more than two Witnesses present at the publishing the Will A Settlement with power of revocation by Will in writing executed in the presence of three witnesses but one of them did not Subscribe his Name yet Decreed a sufficient Revocation though two only Subscribed their Names thereto and upon hearing the words of the power and also the Will of the said Thomas Read declared that as this case was Circumstanced there ought to be a Redemption or a foreclosure and that the Will although but two Witnesses to it did sufficiently revoke the said deed of Intail Rose contra Tillier 33 Car. 2. fo 435. THat William Tillier deceased Copyhold Surrendred on Condition to pay 200 l. to Katherine at 21 years of Age and if she die before 21 without Heirs of her Body then to the Surrendree Katherine dies before 21 leaving a Son Decreed the 200 l. to be paid to the Son and the Lands to stand charged therewith 14 Car. 2. Surrendred Copyhold Lands of Inheritance to the use of the Defendant J. Tillier his Heirs and Assigns for ever upon condition that the Defendant should pay or cause to be paid to Katherine Tillier the Daughter of the said William Tillier 200 l. when she should accomplish the Age of 21 and if the said Katherine should die before 21 without Heirs of her Body then the said 200 l. to be for the use of the said Defendant but if default should be made by the said Defendant then the said Copyhold Lands should be to the use of the said Catherine her Heirs and Assigns and the said Surrender to be void and the said Willian Tillier after the said Surrender and before he died by writing appointed the said Defendant not only to pay the said 200 l. to the said Katherine but also 6 l. per Cent. till such time as the same became due That the Plaintiff married the said Katherine and had by her one Son named George that after Katherine died and then George and the Plaintiff took Administration to them both whereby he is intituled to the said 200 l. with damages The Defendant insists That Katherine died before the Age of 21 and so he is not liable to pay the said 200 l. or to give any Account of the Lands or Profits in the Surrender This Court decreed the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the said 200 l. and that the said Lands so surrendred stand charged therewith Thompson contra Atfield 33 Car. 2. fo 412. THe Bill is to discover a purchase Deed of Frogpoole Marriage Settlement purchased by Henry Atfield the Plaintiffs Great Grandfather to him and his Heirs and that William Thompson the Plaintiffs Grandfather married Mary the eldest Daughter of the said Henry Atfield who declared that he had made the purchase aforesaid for the benefit of the said William and Mary his Wife and for the Heirs of the said Mary and that he would settle the same accordingly but the said Henry Atfield dying before any such Deed was executed yet the said William and Mary were in possession long before the death of the said Henry and paid no Rent and the said Henry leaving a Son at his death viz John Atfield the Defendants Father who having a great affection for Anthony Thompson the Plaintiffs Father who was the Son and only Child of the said William and Mary his Aunt a Match was proposed between the said Anthony and Elizabeth Smith the Plaintiffs Father and Mother which took effect but before and in consideration of the said Marriage the said John Atfield the Defendants Father setled the said premisses on the said Anthony the Plaintiffs Father and his Heirs for ever and the said Anth. had by the said Elizabeth the Plaintiff his eldest Son and Heir But the Defendants pretend the said Deed is defective in Law to have which Deed made good and supply the defect thereof by Equity by the Defendant according to the intent of the original Settlement made by John Atfeild the Defendants Father is the Bill The Defendant insists There could be no such Marriage Agreement for setling
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
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
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
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
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
Defendant for 99 years after his death upon Trust in Case he left no Son or such as should die before 21 without Heirs Males and should leave one or more Daughters for raising of 12000 l. if but one Daughter for such Daughter and if two or more Daughters then 20000 l. to be raised for their portions to be equally divided between them and to be due and payable at their respective Ages of 21 years or days of Marriage and the said George died leaving no Son and having only three Daughters viz. Vrsula Elizabeth and one Ann Stawell who died since her Father and that the said Testator George his Relict married the Defendant Seymore and she on the death of her Daughter Ann took the Administration of her Estate and also soon after died leaving the portion of the said Ann in the said 20000 l. Un administrated and Administration of the said Anns Estate was granted to the said Vrsula and Elizabeth her Sister who are intituled to the said Anns personal Estate and that the said 20000 l. ought to be raised by the said Trustees out of the Lands setled as aforesaid but the Defendants the Trustees insist That by the words of the Will it is dubious whether the whole 20000 l. ought to be raised or any more than 12000 l. When Land to be charged with portion or not upon the words of the Will the said Ann being dead unmarried and before 21. And the Defendant the Heir insisted That as the Case is the portions of the said Ann ought not to be charged on the said Lands so the only Question before the Court being whether the Trustees shall raise 12000 l. or 20000 l. for the said Plaintiffs Vrsula and Elizabeth It appearing plainly to this Court that by the words of the said Will that if the said Testator George had two Daughters or more Daughter then 20000 l. should be raised This Court is of Opinion and declared that the Lands ought to be charged with the 20000 l. and the payment thereof to the Plaintiffs Vrsula and Elizabeth Lawrence contra Berny 29 Car. 2. fo 156. THis Case is on a Bill of Review Bill of Review This Court declared they would not make Error by construction and where a Decree is capable of being executed by the ordinary Process and Forms of the Court and where things come to be in such a State and Condition after a Decree made that it requires an original Bill and a second Decree upon that before the first Decree can be executed In the first Case whatever the inniqity of the first Decree may be yet till it be reversed the Court is bound to assist it with the utmost process the course of the Court will bear for in all this the Conscience of the present Judge is not concerned because it is not his Act but rather his sufferance that the Act of his Predecessor should have its due effect by ordinary Forms But where the common Process of the Court will not serve but a new Bill and a new Decree is become nenessary to have the Execution of a former Decree is in its self unjust there this Court desired to be excused in making in its own Act to build upon such ill Foundations and charging his own Conscience with promoting an apparent injustice and to this condition hath the Plaintiff Lawrence brought himself for he forbore to apply himself to this Court to support him as one that claimed under the Decree in 1650 or to pray an Injunction to stop Berneys proceeding at Law but stay'd till Berney had recovered the Land by a Tryal at Bar Where no ordinary Process upon the first Decree will serve but there must be a new Bill to pray Execution of the first Decree by a second Decree and been put into Possession by the Sheriff and now no ordinary Process upon the first Decree will serve but he is drawn to a new Bill to pray Execution of the first Decree by a second Deree and this obligeth the Court to examin the grounds of the first Decree before they make the same Decree again And this Court was not of this Opinion alone but it was also the Opinion of others that were before him who had made several Presidents in like Cases and would not enter further into Arguments of the Errors Lawrences Bill was an original Bill to Execute two Decrees in 1650 and 1651 and the Defendant Berney now also Plaintiff it being cross Causes brought his Bill of Review to Reverse the said Decree c. as Unjust and Erroncous That the first Decree by the Lord Coventry in 30 Car. 1. decreed a Sale of the premisses for a performance of the Trust that in 1650 a Decree was made to frustrate the Lord Coventry's Decree Priske contra Palmer 29 Car. 2. fo 323. THis Court was satisfied the Plaintiff had a quiet enjoyment for a long time and declared Want of a surrender Aided That notwithstanding a Surrender is wanting yet the Plaintiffs Title ought to be supplied in Equity and decreed the Plaintiff to enjoy the premisses and the perpetual Injunction to stay all proceedings at Law Woolstenholm contra Swetnam 29 Car. 2. fo 146. THat Thomas Swetnam deceased Settlement being possessed of a Personal Estate and making provision for his Grand-Children being the Children of Thomas his eldest Son being five in number whereof Peter Swetnam was one did by Deed authorize the Defendant William Swetnam who was his second Son and the Defendant Thomas Swetnam who was his Grandchild to receive 32 l. Rent which was an Arrear of 16 l. per Annum Annuity of Foster's Farm in Trust to be divided amongst his said five Grandchildren at the Age of 21 and the said Thomas the Grandfather by some other Deed charged his whole Lands on a Settlement thereof on the Defendant Thomas with the payment of 1000 l. equally amongst his said five Grandchildren whereof the said Peter was one and in further kindness to the said Peter in 1657. by Will gave him 100 l. to be paid out of the Personal Estate and made the Defendant William his Executor and the said Peters Father to increase his Fortune put out several Sums of Mony in the said William's Name and deposited other Mony in the said Defendants hands for the said Peters use and by his Will surther gave to Peter 30 l. and Peter married the Plaintiff Martha and by his Will devised all his Estate to the said Martha whereby the Plaintiff is intituled to the said Devisee and to the said Peters shate in the 1000 l. so to be relieved for the Sum is the Bill The Defendant William insists That Thomas the Father of Peter died possessed of a Personal Estate of 266 l. and the Defendant as his Executor possest it 1000 l. to be raised and divided amongst five Children one dies before distribution the Survivors shall have his share and not the Devisee of him that is dead and paid
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
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
said Francis Pawlet and the other Trustees Executors Will pursuant to a Settlement for raising Portion That Vere Pawlet one of the said Daughters died and the Plaintiff her Mother took Administration to her Estate and thereby intitles her self to the said Portions of 4000 l. appointed to be paid to the said Vere at her Age or day of Marriage And the Question now being Whether the Plaintiff by virtue of such Administration is intituled to the Portion of her said Daughter Vere who died before her Age or day of Marriage and the Trustees should be compelled to raise the same out of the Trust of the Term of 500 years which was granted out of the Defendant the now Lord Pawlet the Infants Inheritance This Court upon perusal of Presidents declared Difference between a Legacy and a Trust they did not find any of the Presidents that came up to this Case and conceived there was a great difference between a Legacy and a Trust for that a Trust is expounded according to the intent of the party but a Legacy is governed by the Rules of Common Law and an Executor who is to have the residue in one case is not of so great regard as the Heir who is to have the residue in the other Settlement for the raysing of 4000 l. Portion to two Daughters to be paid at Age or day of Marriage one dye before her Portion shall not go to her Administrator but the Heir shall take profits That this case is of general concern to all Families for it was grown a thing of course to charge the younger Childrens Portions upon the Heirs Estate which would not have been charged but for these occasions of providing for Children And in this case the time of payment never hapning but becoming impossible by the death of the Child before the Portion was payable the Plaintiff has no right to demand it And it were hard for this Court to make a Strain against the Heir where the consideration failes for which the Portion was given viz. the advancement of the Children and altho' there were a Will in the case yet it refers to the Deed and was made at the same time so that it does not at all alter the consideration of the Case and it would be hard to decree the payment presently for that were to wrong the Heir who is to have the proceed of the Mony beyond the maintainance until the time of payment This Court saw no ground to take it from the Heir at Law to give it to an Administrator who might have been a Stranger and so dismist the Plaintiffs Bill The Presidents used in this Cause for the Administrators were Rowley contra Lancaster Brown contra Bruen Clobery contra Lampen The President for the Heir Gold contra Emery This Cause was heard in Parliament and the dismission confirmed Woodhall contra Benson al' 36 Car. 2. fo 314. THat John Wirley deceased Settlement Will. being possessed of divers Mannors and Lands for 320 years that the said Term came to the Defendants Adams and Shagburgh in Trust for payment of Monies and after in Trust for Edward Colley Grandson of John Wirley for his life and after his decease to the Plaintiff Ann late Wife of the said Edward Colley and the said Plaintiff Ann to have 130 l. per Annum for her life which Settlement was made in consideration of Marriage and after the death of Edward Colley the Trustees were directed to permit the Heirs Males of Edward on the Plaintiff Ann to be begotten to receive the residue of the profits and in case of no Issue Male of her there is provision for Daughters and Limitations over to the said Edward Colley's Heirs Males and it was also declared that in case the Plaintiff Ann should Survive the said Edward then she to have the moiety of the Mannor house for her life that the Trust limited to the Heirs Males of Edward and the Remainders thereupon depending are void and the benefit of the whole Trust was in Edward for that the Trust would not be Intailed That by another Deed it was declared by the said Edward Colley and his said Trustees that in case the Plaintiff Ann should have no Issue she should have the whole Mannor house above the 130 l. per Annum and by another Deed the said Edward Colley by consent of his said Trustees declared in case the said Edward should die leaving the Plaintiff Ann no Issue and should not otherwise dispose of the residue of the profits of the premisses over and above the Rents and Charges payable as aforesaid then his said Trustees after his death should by Sale or Leases of the premisses pay all debts and after all debts paid to permit the Plaintiff to receive the residue of the profits for her life and after her death to permit the right Heirs of Edward to receive the same That the Trust for the right Heirs of Edward was void and reverted and the said Edward did afterwards declare that in case he had no Issue he intended to leave his whole Estate to the Plaintiff Ann. That the said Edward 22 Jan. 26 Car. 2. made his Will in writing reciting the Agreement in the last Deed touching payment of his debts and after some small Legacies devised to his said Trustees all the rest of his personal Estate in Trust that they should pay his debts as aforesaid and declared his meaning to be that his Executors after his debts paid should deliver the overplus to the Plaintiff Ann deducting 5 l. a-piece for their pains and all charges That Edward soon after dying the overplus belonged to the Plaintiff and the said Trustees possessed the premisses and the personal Estate and the Plaintiff Ann having since intermarryed the Plaintiff Woodhal whereby the whole belongs and remains unto him in right of his Wife and the said Trustees ought to Assign to the said Plaintiff But the said Trustees pretend the Trust and Term aforesaid doth after the Plaintiff Anns death belong unto the Defendant Gabriel Ciber and Jane his Wife she being the only Sister and Heir at Law of the said Edward Colley That the Defendant Benson knowing of the Will and Settlement aforesaid purchased the premisses of the Defendant Ciber and his Wife and the Trustees Assigned to him The Defendants the Trustees insisted That their names were used in the Marriage Settlement of Edward Colley upon his Marriage with the Plaintiff Ann in which Settlement was recited a Conveyance made by John Wirley whereby he did demise the Trusts therein mentioned and the premisses in Trusts as to Clark's Farm for such persons as he or his Executors should by Will or otherwise direct and several other persons upon several other Trusts and as to several parcels of the said premisses which the said Defendant conceived was the Estate lately enjoyed by Edward Colley in Trust for such persons as the said John Wirley should direct and for want of such appointment to
Jane his Daughter for her life and after to John Colley her Son and Heir and his Issue Male and for want of such Issue in Trust for the Daughters of the said Jane and after the death of Jane and John Edward was intituled and he together with Sir John Wirley the Surviving Trustees upon Edwards marrying with the Plaintiff did Demise to the said Defendants the Trustees the Mannor-house c. for the Term of 20 years in Trust to pay certain Annuities therein mentioned and to permit Edward Colly for his life to receive the profits of the residue and in case the Marriage took effect and the Plaintiff Ann Survived him then to pay her 130 l. per Annum for her life and after Edwards death to permit the Heirs males of their two Bodies to receive the residue of the profits and for default of such Issue male there is provision for Daughters and supposes the residue of the profits may be limited to any Issue male of Edwards and for want of such Issue to permit the Defendant Jane and Ann since deceased Sister of the said Edward to receive the profits of the Estate as the Deed expresses and that he remembred no other Agreement than what is mentioned in the said Deed and sets forth the Deed of 21 Jan. 26 Car. 2. whereby the said Defendants the Trustees were intituled by Sale or Leases to pay debts and after payment thereof if the Plaintiff Ann should be then living should permit her to receive the residue of the profits for her life and afterher decease the right Heirs of Edward to receive the same that after the time of executing the last mentioned Deed the said Edward made his Will and after some Legacies took notice of the said Deed bearing date the day before and it was declared thereby that the Defendants the Trustees should out of the profits pay all his debts and being fearful those profits should not do did Devise to them all the rest of his personal Estate and made them Executors and after debts paid the residue to the Plaintiff Ann. That Nov. 1676 Edward Colley died after which the said Defendant proved the Will and entred on the Estate But the Defendants Ciber and Jane his Wife insisted That the said Defendant Jane being the only Sister and Heir to Edward Colley are after his debts intituled to the premisses for a long Term to commence after the death of the Plaintiff Ann and have sold their interest to the Defendant Benson Upon reading the said Deed and Will A Term in gross and not to be Entailed the Lord Keeper North was of opinion that the said Term so as aforesaid Created was a Term in gross and so not capable of being intailed and therefore it could not descend to the Heir of Edward Colley but that the same should be liable to the payment of his Debts and that the Plaintiff Ann should hold the 130 l. per An. for her life and after the said Debts paid the Plaintiff Ann should receive the profits of the whole Estate for her life charged with the said Annuity and the said Plaintiffs were to redeem the Mortgage to the Defendant Woodward But as to the Residue of the said Term after the death of the Plaintiff Ann and debts paid how the same should be disposed a Case was ordered to be made A Case being Stated this Cause came to be heard thereon before the Lord Chancellor Jefferies and all the former pleadings being opened as also the Defendant Cibers cross Bill which was to this effect viz. to have the said Term of 820. years to attend the Inheritance and the Case stated appearing to be no otherwise than before is set forth His Lordship on reading the said Deed and Will A Residue of a Term after debtspaid and a life determined Decreed not to the Residuary Legatee but to the Heir the Question being who shall have the remainder of the Term in the said Lease whether the Plaintiff Ann as Residuary Legatee or whether she shall have only an Estate for life his Lordship declared that the Deed and Will do make but one Will and by them there was no more intended to the Plaintiff Ann than an Estate for her life and that she ought to enjoy the whole Mansion House cum pertin ' during her life and also the overplus of the profits of the Residue of the said Estate after Debts and Legacies paid and the Defendant Benson who purchased the Inheritance of Ciber to enjoy the same discharging all things as aforesaid Hall contra Dench 36 Car. 2. fo 799. THat the Plaintiff Grace Hall Will. Revocation being Daughter of William Knight deceased who was Son of Susanna one of the Sisters and Coheirs of Thomas Bridger deceased which said Thomas Bridger being seized in Fee of Lands in Binstead and Middleton and having no Children made his Will in 1663. by which he gave to Tho. Knight Son of the said Willi. Knight all his Lands in Binstead to the said Thomas Knight and the Heirs of his Body and for want of such issue then to the Plaintiff Grace and the Heirs of her Body with Remainders over and by the same Will Devised one Moiety of the Lands in Middleton to the said Thomas Knight and the Heirs of his Body with the like Remainders over and sometimes after the said Will the said Thomas Bridger Mortgaged the said Lands in Binstead to John Comber and his Heirs for 500 l. and the said Bridger repaid the 500 l. and had the Mortgage delivered up and Cancelled but no Reconveyance of the Lands and that the said Comber after that was but a Trustee for Bridger the Mortgagee who in 1682. declared that the Will he made in 1663. should stand and be his last Will and then denied But the Defendant Dench having got the Cancelled Deed in his Custody and the Plaintiff brought an Ejectment under the Title of the Will and got a verdict for the Lands in Middleton but the Defendant at the Tryal setting up a Title in the Defendant Comber upon the Cancelled Mortgage for the Lands in Binstead a Verdict passed for the Defendant so to have the said Mortgage deed delivered up and the Plaintiff to enjoy the premisses according to the said Will is the Bill The Defendants as Co-heirs at Law to Bridger insist That the Testator Bridger never intended that the Estate should go as that Will directed in regard he soon after the said Will Mortgaged the same to Comber and besides the Legatees and Executors in the said Will were most of them dead before the said Bridger and the Mortgage money was not paid till after the Estate forfeited and that the Mortgage to Comber was an absolute Revocation of the said Will and upon an Ejectment brought by the Plaintiff under the said Will the Defendants obtained a Verdict for the Lands in Binstead wherein the validity of the said Will was in issue The Plaintiffs insist That the Verdict obtained
by the Defendants as aforesaid was by reason the Title in Law was in Comber the Mortgagee and not upon the Vallidity of the Will and that a Verdict had been had in affirmation of the said Will for other Lands therein mentioned and the Testator was in possession of the premisses at the time of his death This Court the Defendants insisting to have it tryed at Law whether a Revocation of the said Will or not declared there was no Colour to direct any Trial at Law in this Case for that on reading the proofs it plainly appeared When the Mortgage money is paid the Mortgagee and his Heirs are Trustees for the Mortgagor and his Heirs that the Testator expresly declared the said Will should be his last Will and that upon such an express proof it would be vain to direct a Tryal at Law and declared that when the Mortgage money was paid the Morgagee and his Heirs immediately from that time became Trustees for the Mortgagor and his Heirs and the Court having considered of several presidents as well Antient as Modern A Will and after that a Mortgage the Will is Republished its a good Will and not revoked which were full in the point that notwithstanding such Revocation yet there was a Republication of the Will and that the same was a Republication of such a nature that made the said Will a good Will and decreed the Defendant Grace to enjoy the premisses according to the said Will. This Cause came to be Re-heard before the Lord Chancellor Jefferies who was well satisfied with the Republication and declared that notwithstanding the said Mortgage the Will was a good Will and not revoked and confirmed the former decree Pullen contra Serjeant R6 Cor. 2. fo 570. THe Bill is to have a discovery of the Estate of Ann Nurse deceased and a distribution to be made and the Plaintiffs to have their proportions thereof they being next of Kin to the said Ann Nurse viz. the Plaintiff Ann Wife of the Plaintiff Pullen Sister by the Mothers side of the said Testatrix Ann Nurse and the other Plaintiffs are of the same degrees of Consanguinity and so are Intituled to their equal shares of her Personal Estate Executrix dies before the Testator there shall be Administration cum Testamento annex ' and the said Ann Nurse made Ann the Wife of William Hodges Executrix who died before the said Ann Nurse and the said Ann Nurse died without altering of her Will That after her death the Defendant Serjeant a Relation to the said Ann Nurse took Administration of the said Ann Nurse's Personal Estate The Defendant insists That he being only Brother and one of the nearest Relations to Ann Nurse the Testatrix and her said Executrix dying before she Administred with the Will annexed and paid Debts and Legacies and is willing to Distribute as the Court shall direct and craves the Direction of the Court whether the Plaintiffs being of the half-blood shall have equal proportion with the Defendant and others of the whole blood This Court declared They of the half-blood shall have equal share of the Personal Estate with those of the whole blood That the Plaintiff who are of the half blood to the said Ann Nurse were equally intituled to a Distribution of the said Estate and to an equal share of the Defendant Serjeant and others who are of the whole blood and decreed the same accordingly Keale contra Sutton 36 Car. 2. fo 773. THE Defendant being Arrested in the Marshalls Court A Prohibition granted for Arresting in the Marshalls Court for matters arising in Berkshire for matters arising in Berkshire out of the Jurisdiction of that Court This Court granted a Prohibition which being Disobeyed an Attachment was ordered against the Persons Disobeying the same and the Defendant to proceed upon the same Carvill contra Carvill 36 Car. 2. fo 142. THat the Testator Robert Carvill by Will the fifth of June 1675. Will. and thereby gave the Plaintiffs several Legacies and also Legacies to the Defendants which he appointed to be paid by Sale of Lands after the death of his Sister Rosamond whom with the Defendants he made Executors and gave his said Executors residium bonorum and in 1678. died and the said Rosamond is dead That the Defendant Robert Carvill being the Eldest Son of Henry the Testators Brother is his Heir at Law who insists That the Testator made no such Will and that he claims the said Lands by Dissent or if any such Will was made the Testator was non compos at the making thereof and that no Person was named in the said Will to Sell the said Lands and insists on the Act against Frauds and Perjuries and Avers Statutes of Frauds and Perjuries That the Testator died not till 1680. and that he did not make and sign that Will according to the said Act there being no Witnesses that have Attested it according to that Act and doth therefore insist that the same is void in Law as to the Devise of Lands and that the same are come to him as Heir and he hath since Recovered the same at Law and insists also that the said Will is void in Law because no Person is appointed to make Sale and being but a voluntary Disposition for payment of Legacies and not Debts the Plaintiff ought to have no Relief to make the same good in Equity to the Disinherison of the Defendant the Heir at Law But the Plaintiffs insisted Though the Testator died after the said Act viz. December 1678. yet the Will was made long before the 24th of June 1677. and so is not within the intention of the said Act and that though no Person be in express words named to Sell the Lands yet the Sale ought to be made by his Executors and the Heir ought to be Compelled to joyn in the Sale The Defendant the Heir insisted That though the Will might be out of the provision of the Act being made before the making of the Act yet there is no good proof that any such Will was made or published by the Testator This Court directed it to Law on this Issue Devisavit vel non devisavit Will or not Will. and a Verdict passed for the Plaintiff This Cause coming to be heard on the equity reserved and this Court being satisfied with the Verdict which was viz. That the said Robert Carvill the Testator did make and publish such Will and thereby devised the said Lands to be sold as aforesaid This Court upon reading the Will Lands Devised to be sold and now express't to sell the same Executors Decreed to sell decreed the said Lands to be sold by the said Executors and the said Legacies to be paid thereout according to the said Will. Norton contra Mascall 36 Car. 2. fo 544. THE Suit is to have a voluntary Award performed A voluntary Award Decreed to be performed the Defendant insisted It being a voluntary
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
and Seisin This Court declared and was fully satisfied That in this Case his Majesty ought to be relieved Grant and Inrolment in the Dutchy-Court vacated and the Patentees decreed to Reconvey to the King and the said Grant set aside and made void and decreed the same accordingly and the Inrolment thereof in the Dutchy-Court vacated and the Defendants to procure those in whom the Estate in Law is to Reconvey unto his Majesty and the Defendants at liberty to apply to his Majesty for to have the Mony paid back which was paid to Sir Thomas Chichley and Cuxton as aforesaid Beckford contra Beckford 1 Jac. 2. fo 196. THat Richard Beckford Citizen and Freeman of London had several Children and by his Will in writing after Debts and Funeral Charges paid appointed one full third part of his Personal Estate to the Plaintiff Frances Beckford his Relict according to the Custom of the City of London and declared that Frances and Elizabeth two of his Daughters had been fully advanced in his life-time and that Mary and Jane two other Daughters had not and directed they should bring their Portions they had received into the third part of his Personal Estate belonging unto his unpreferred Children and they should have equal shares with his unpreferred Children Now the question between the Plaintiff Frances and the unpreferred Children how the said Estate should be divided by the Custom of London the Plaintiff Frances insisting that the Children not fully Advanced ought to bring what they had received into the whole Estate and then she ought to have one full third part of the whole Personal Estate insisting That every Widow of a Freeman ought by the Custom of London to be indowed with one full third part of the whole Personal Estate This Court declared the Custom to be The unadvanced Children by the Custom of London to bring in what they had received into Hotch-potch with with the Orphanage thirds after the Estate is divided into thirds and not with the whole Estate That the Testators two Children Mary and Jane who were not fully Advanced were to bring what they had received into Hotch-potch with the Orphanage thirds after the Estate is divided into thirds and not into Hotch potch with the whole Estate and decreed accordingly And what hath been received by any one more than their share and Legacies is to be Repaid as the Master shall appoint Halliley contra Kirtland 1 Jac. 2. fo 566. THat John Park Mortgaged Lands to the Defendant Kirtland for 60 l. Mortgage and was also indebted to the Defendant Sanderson 50 l. on Bond and the said Kirtland wanting his money Assigned the said Mortgage to the said Sanderson so that Sanderson on payment to him the money paid to Kirtland on the said Mortgage and his 50 l. on Bond and Interest is willing to Reconvey to the Plaintiff which they refuse to do This Court in as much as the Estate so vested in the Defendant as aforesaid The Plaintiff decreed to pay off a Bond of 50 l. as well as the Mortgage money upon Redemption is a Chattel Lease and so liable to debts and the Defendant having an Assignment of the Mortgage and his debt on Bond being a just debt declared that the Plaintiff ought not to be let in to a Redemption of the said Mortgage but upon payment of the said 50 l. and interest due on the said Bond as well as the Mortgage money and decreed accordingly Coltman contra Warr 1 Jac. 2. fo 566. THis Court would not Rehear a Cause after decree Signed and Inrolled No re-hearing after a Decree Signed and Inroled notwithstanding the said Cause had been opened since the Inrolement in order to Re-hearing and discharged the Order for Re-hearing Jones al' contra Henley 1 Jac. 2. fo 995. SIR Robert Henley by Will gives 100 l. Legacies a piece to all his Servants which Will is Dated the 10th of November 1680. and Sir Robert lived afterwards till the 7th of August 1681. but made no Republication of the said Will and the Plaintiffs as Servants to Sir Robert demands 100 l. apiece Legacy That these Servants viz. Jones Clerk Meeke Serle and Hanbury were all Menial Servants before the 10th of November 1680. and so continued till the 7th of August 1681. That these Servants viz. Litchfield Davies Deacon Booth Noon c. were all Servants at the time of his death but were not in his Service at the time of making of the Will that Cook and Hawkes were both Servants at the 10th of November 1680. but before the 7th of August 1681. were discharged from his Service That William Harris son was a Menial Servant the 10th of November 1680. but dyed before the 7th of August 1681. That Castilian Goddard c. were Servants at large but not Menial viz. as Steward and Bailiff before the 10th of November 1680. and so continued till the said 1681. but did not Inhabit in the House That Stranger and Long were Chairmen and agreed with after the said 1680. at 20 s. per week so The Plaintiffs insist That such that were his Servants at the time of his death ought to have the benefit of the said Devise But the Defendant insisted That none of the Plaintiffs can be any ways intituled to that benefit but only such as were Menial Servants before the publishing of the said Will and did so continue all along to be Menial Servants and live in the House with him to the time of his death This Court declared Who are Servants capable to receive Legacies by the general words of a. Will To all my Servants c. that none of the said Plaintiffs but such as were Servants to the said Sir Robert before the making the said Will and did so continue to be Servants to him until the time of his death could have any pretence to the said Legacy and such only as were his Menial Servants and lived all along in the House with him from before the 10th of November 1680. until the 7th of August 1681. and no others and ordered that Jones Clerk c. only and no other of the Plaintiffs be paid their Legacy of a 100 l. a piece by the said Defendant and ordered the Bill as to all the other Plaintiffs to be dismissed Fenwick al' contra Woodroffe al' 1 Jac. 2. fo 400. THat Doctor Smalwood deceased Agreement on Marriage to purchase Lands by Deed in 1672 conveys the Land and premisses to Trustees and their Heirs to the use of himself for life Remainder to Theophania his Wife for life Remainder to Mary their sole Daughter and the Heirs of her Body Remainder to his own right Heirs with a proviso That if his said Daughter Mary should then after Marry in his life time without his privity and consent first had then all and every the uses and limitations therein mentioned and made should cease and be utterly void That the said Mary
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
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
not found to be read tho' no Counterpart was sealed yet none of these by any of the Presidents have either been singly or altogether allowed as Causes to set aside a Deed in Equity He was of Opinion that the Deed doth confirm the Will of 1675. in the setling and assuring the Estate part on the Dutchess and part on the Earl and as to particular limitations the Duke might alter his Mind from the Will and do it according to the Deed. The Third thing they insist on by way of Surprize is That it was done contrary to the Dukes Intention Whereas the Defendants have proved that it was according to his Intention and the other side say not neither before nor after the making of the Deed For that there were several Wills made by Duke George and not a word of any Limitation of any Estate to the Earl of Bathe Which is answered by the other side That the Wills are in few words and thereby all given to Duke Christopher and not any provision made for any younger Son or Daughter neither in these Wills nor in the Will of 1675. is there any thing given to the Father of this Monck Another Objection That the Duke never intended any thing to Sir Walter Clergies for that he was fallen into his displeasure and what is given is a remote Remainder but there were Proofs of continued Kindness to the Earl of Bathe And the greatest proof that there was no Surprize was the presence of Sir William Jones at the execution of the Deed who was of great Ability and Integrity and would not be guilty of a surprizing and he was satisfied that there was nothing but fair dealing in the execution of the Deed. As to the Will of 1687. perhaps it might be intended not to give this Estate to the Earl and that there was great Advice taken on that Will But what was the meaning of the Duke in making the Will of 1687. if it must signifie nothing The truest Answer that hath been given is That he Advised whether a Will would revoke the Deed and when he understood that it would not but that he had put all out of his power except by a strict Revocation then he gratified the continued Importunities of his near Relations and endeavours by that to render himself easy so he conceived the Deed well executed and is pursuant to the VVill of 1675. and cannot be set aside on the point of Surprize The next point insisted on is Concealment and they insist on a Clause in the Earls Answer where the Duke sent for the Deed in Order to make a new Settlement The Will he might have Revoked without the Deed but as the Plaintiff saith the not doing of it was a Concealment and the Argument is good if the fact were true But it s not so for it doth not appear that he ever intended to Revoke the Deed and both the Will of 75. and the Deed of 81. were delivered into the Earls Hands just before the Duke went abroad and the Concealment was not from the Duke but the Dutchess and the Presidents Cited of Clare contra Com' Bedford and Raw contra Pott come not up to this Case The next point insisted on is Revocation The Will of 1687. say the Plaintiffs is a Revocation in Equity though there was not the Quality or Number of Witnesses described and limited in the Proviso It s no Revocation neither was it intended so the Duke wrote a Letter to the Earl that he had done him no wrong and he left the Keys with him and imployed the Earl in selling the Cockpitt and Albemarle House and the Duke continued in the same mind to Moâ—ck and Sir Walter Clargies and there seemed no reason why he should not be of the same mind as to the Earl and there was a great Provision made for the Dutchess by the Will and Deed but not a word of Mr. Monck in either but only in this last Will. Where there are two voluntary Conveyances he that hath the Estate by Law shall hold it Where a Party shall be relieved where there is a defect they shall be relieved where there is a defect they shall be relieved where there is a deceipt or falsity and the Presidents are that they have been relieved in such Cases where it is to pay Debts or to provide for Children several Presidents have been Cited as Price and Green Ferrers and Thannett Webb and Webb temp Eliz. Doctor Hamilton contra Maxwellin 1655. Bowman and Yates Wallis and Coate contra Gryme Thwaytes contra Deg Arundell contra Phillpott As for the Trust nothing was said by him of it for it cannot be presumed that there was any Resulting Trust for that was to undoe what he had done before The Defendants are in possession by a Verdict upon the Deed and there is no reason to disturbe them Lord Chief Justice Holt This Case depends on a Will of 1675. and a Deed of 1681. and a Will of 1687. and the question is whether the Will of 1687 doth Revoke the Deed of 1681. it being not pursuant to the power He was of the same Opinion with Baron Powel and Lord Chief Justice Treby The Deed is a good Deed and so all the Evidences and Circumstances relating to the Deed ought to be taken to be true viz. that Sir William Jones was advised with in the Draught and was present as a Witness and that the Will of 1687. is a good Will but not to be relieved against the Deed of 1681. which must be taken to be a good Deed and he reduced what he had to say to four Heads 1. Of the Frame and Manner of the Deed. 2. Whether on the Evidence the Deed were unduly obtained 3. Of the Circumstances and Conditions of the Persons 4. Of the Person of the Duke himself and the Circumstances he was in when he made his Will of 1687. for whether the Plaintiffs shall be relieved against the Deed is the Question As to the first It s said the Will of 75 and the Deed make but one Conveyance and that is fetcht from Law for at Law a Fine and Recovery and Deed to Lead the Uses are but one Conveyance So as to the first from the Contradictions and Misrecitals in the Deed which have been insisted on there is no Cause to relieve against the Deed. As to the second on the matter of obtaining the Deed he said he could not find any undue obtaining of the Deed but that Sir William Jones his Hand was in the Proviso of the said Deed and that the Deed was not executed by a Surprise for the Dukes Councel was present at the execution of the Deed and here is no fraud to set it aside As to the Case of Winn and Bodvile which has been Cited there was a great fraud and practise but there is no fraud or circumvention here but the Deed is fairly obtained and there is nothing but a presumptive Evidence against it which ought not
in Equity to be an Evidence against the Deed so as there appears no Evidence that the Earl surprized the Duke or that the Duke was surprized As to the third point touching the Circumstances and Conditions of the Persons The Earl was a near Relation and had done many kindnesses to the Duke and his Family and was especially intrusted by him and though the other Persons that claim by the Will of 1687. may be of Relation to him yet he that hath the best Title hath the right And so it is in the Case of Persons where both claim under two voluntary Conveyances As to the fourth and last point touching the Circumstances the Duke was in when the Will was made the Duke when he made the Will was under a Restraint by the Deed of 1681. for his power was executed and the Duke had restrained himself And the Court of Equity hath no power to examine into the Reasons and Considerations for doing it and there may be Reasons for a Wise Man to Restrain himself for he may not know what surprize may be put upon him and as there may be reason for it so it shall be presumed there was good reason Further there is no Evidence of an Intention in the Duke to execute the power for he had an opportunity to have done it and because a Man may one way dispose of his Estate that therefore he may do it any way is strange and if that may be done it will overthrow all the Conveyances that are made They on the other side pretend the Duke had forgotten the Deed. It was made but in 1681. and well attested by Credible Witnesses and if he had forgotten it his Councel had an Abstract of the Deed and because a Man had forgot a Deed that ought not to be a cause in a Court of Equity to set that Deed aside for Memory may fail but a Deed is Permanent so there ought to be no relief against the Earl and those that claim by the Deed of 1681. Lord Keeper There be three Suits in this Court the Dutchess her first Eill is to set aside the Deed of 1681. And the second Bill by the Moncks much to the same effect and on the same Evidence And the third Bill by the Earl complaining of the Will of 1687. On the hearing of the Causes the 8th day of July 1691. before the then Lords Commissioners and on a Trial directed touching the Validity of the said Deed of 1681. there was a Verdict for the Deed and this Verdict hath not been stirred The Cause comes now to be heard on the Equity reserved on the whole matter I declare the Deed doth stand Unrevoked at Law and the Defendant the Earl of Bathe is well intituled under that Deed for here are no Creditors nor Purchasers or any Children to be provided for and the benefit that comes to the Earl is the Essex and the Northern Estate The Court did declare that there is not any sufficient matter in Equity appears to set aside the Deed therefore dismist the Bill of the Earl of Mountague and Christopher Monk so far as they seek relief to set aside the said Deed of 1681. and as to the other matters Equity to be reserved THE TABLE A UPon the Buying the Equity of Redemption of Lands in Extent Account decreed from the time of the purchase p. 392 Bond to perform a Marriage Agreement pleaded in bar of other Debts 103 Letters under ones Hand shall amount to a good Agreement within the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries 286 Mony Agreed upon Marriage to be laid out in Land shall be applied as the Land should have been had it been purchased 409 Annuity not being demanded in 40 years time conceived to be a Trust 221 The Defendant ordered to pay the Plaintiff 100 l. for putting in a Scandalous Answer 386 Bill to discover Assets Lands decreed to be sold to supply the Personal Estate 99 Legatees to refund to make up Assets 137 Lands purchased in Trust decreed Assets to pay Judgments 143 No resorting back to a defect in Articles after a Conveyance thereupon executed 107 Cross-Bills for setting aside or performing an Award 24 A voluntary Award decreed to be performed 304 B BAil to answer no more than what is exprest in the Ac etiam Billae 55 226 Bankrupts as to Partners 227 228 Joynt Debts 227 228 Separate Creditors 227 228 Relief against Over-reaching Bargains and how 266 270 The Bill not to be taken pro Confesso if the Defendant hath not appeared but a Sequestration shall issue out against him 284 Relief denied against a Bond entred into to a Solicitor to pay 100 l. when a Verdict should be recovered 21 Parson relieved against a Bond given for Resignation 398 C CErtiorari allowed to remove proceedings by English Bill in the Lord Mayorâ—s Court into Chancery 110 Conveyance with power of Revocation on payment of 12 d. at such a place 12 d. was tendred at another place with express declaration to revoke the Deed 74 Vide Revocation 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 22 Covenant to purchase so much Lands per Annum value 273 Voluntary Conveyance tho' a provision for younger Children not to prevent satisfaction of subsequent Judgments 265 Copyholder not to be admitted by Letter of Attorney 56 Fines of Copyholders whether certain or arbitrary it having been tried at Law the Court would not relieve the Plaintiff other than for the preservation of Witnesses 76 Of renewing Copies upon reasonable Fines 135 Vpon a Contract for Copyhold Estate and Purchase Mony paid the Bargainor dies before Surrender his Heir decreed to surrender 218 Surrender of Copyhold Land by Infant of 5 years Old 392 Costs from the time of their being Taxed shall carry Interest and shall Charge and be recovered out of the Assets 247 Where Costs to be paid or not 172 Bill for Creditors to take their proportionable shares but their Debts having been paid to them and Releases given dismist 218 D THe Court of Chancery will not try or ascertain Damages recovered at Law 63 Copies of Depositions not to be recorded or exemplified 36 Depositions suppressed and why 393 Blanks filled up after the sealing and execution of a Deed yet good 410 Distribution according to the Act for the better settlement of Intestates Estates 371 372 Such Distributions are made in Chancery as well as in the Ecclesiastical Courts 373 374 375 A 1000 l. to be raised amongst 5 Children one dies before Distribution the Survivors shall have the Share and not the Devisee of him that is dead 150 Decree in Chancery as effectual to charge the person as an Execution at Law 193 Executory Devises vide Perpetuities Term devised to B. and he die without Issue then to C. it s void as to C. 16 200 l.