Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	declare_v	defendant_n	plaintiff_n	1,698	5	10.3148	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52558	The plaintiffs case upon an appeal brought in the House of Lords against	Noy, William, Captain.; Fortescue, Peter, Sir, 1620 or 21-1685.	1680 (1680)	Wing N1440B; ESTC R222314	2,241	1

The Plaintiffs CASE upon an Appeal brought in the House of Lords Against Sir Peter Fortescu Baronet and Dame Amy his Wife Relict and Executrix of Sir Peter Courtny Defendants Capt. William Noy Executor of Honour Noy Plaint in one Bill Humphrey Sarah Honour Prudence Children and Administrators of Francis Noy in the other Bill are Plaintiffs THat Phillip Noy the said Francis and William Noys late Father deceased being possest of a Term for 99. years absolute of Lands in Cornwall worth about 200 l. per annum made Honour his Relict and the said Francis his Son Excutors That in June 1671. Francis Noy dyed and Honour as surviving Executor entred and quietly enjoyed the Lands untill her Death which was in April 1675. having first made the Plaintiff William Noy her Executor who entred and enjoyed quietly until Sir Peter Courtny brought his Ejectment and obtained Judgment by default and got possession whilst the Plantiff William Noy being an Officer at Portsmouth was attending his Majesties service there above 200 Miles distant and knew nothing of it Whereupon the Plantiff William Noy exhibited his Bill in Chancery to discover the Defendants Title and to be relieved therein The Defendants by Answer say that Sir Peter Courtny August 4. 1649. and one Holmes as sureties only became bound with Humphry Noy Esq Attorny General Noy's Son to Edward Parker Esq in a Bond of 1000 l. for payment of 500 l. and Interest and confess he had also a Mortgage from Humphry Noy for further security thereof and say That Francis Noy one of the said Executors by Deed dated the 28th of November 1651. in consideration of 50 l. mentioned to be paid assigned the whole Term of 99. years to Sir Peter Courtny And believe this Assignment was made for the consideration of 50 l. and also to Counter-secure Sir Peter against his bond to Parker although in truth no such consideration is mentioned in the Deed as concerning its being a Counter-security and that Parker sued Sir Peter and got Judgment against him on the Bond in 1655. And that the Defendant Dame Amy as Sir Peters Executor hath been since forc't to pay 1000 l. for principal and Interest besides costs of Suit to Parker upon this Bond. That the Plaintiff William Noyes Cause coming to be heard before the late Lord Keeper Bridgman in 1672. and the Defendants Council finding his Lordship to declare the said Assignment could be taken at most to be but a security for the 50 l. insisted that the Administrator of Francis Noy who aliened the Term ought to be a party to the Suit before it could regularly be determined Thereupon the Court suspended giving Judgement untill Francis Noyes Administrator was made a party and brought to hearing That the Plaintiffs the Children of Francis Noy thereupon took Administration to their Father and were made Defendants and Answered William Noyes Bill and exhibited their Original Bill against the Defendant Fortescue and the Plaintiff William Noy to be releived in case the right to the Estate be adjudged to belong to them That both these Causes coming to be heard before the now Lord Chancellor his Lordship was pleased to dismiss the Plaintiff William Noyes Bill with costs which are taxed at 100 l. And as to the Plaintiffs the Childrens Bill directed an Accompt and that unless they should pay all the mony paid to Parker with Interest and costs of Suit in Law and in Chancery at such time as the Master should appoint their Bill also to stand dismissed And the Master hath by his Report allowed 934 l. for Interest of the said 500 l. which is Interest upon Interest and 527 l. for costs of suit in all 1922 l-3 s-7 d. to be paid by the poor Plaintiffs the Children in Six Months then next which they not being able to do and the time being elapsed the said Judgments and dismissions in both Causes are signed and inrolled and the Plaintiffs the Children have nothing left but the Kindnesse and Charity of their friends to live upon By Order on Hearing which is inrolled by the Defendants they are only to have the money paid to Parker with Interest and Costs but not the 50 l. mentioned in the Consideration of the Deeds this not being proved to be paid so they have thereby admitted that point to be adjudged against them and there is no proof that the Assignment to Courtny was made to counter-secure him against the debt to Parker nor any mention of any such thing in the Deed And it appeared the Assignment was not made till two years after Sir Peter became bound to Parker nor any consideration or reason why Francis Noy should Counter secure Sir Peter Courtny against a debt that Francis Noy was no ways concerned in But it is confessed by the Defendants Answer that Humphry Noy gave a Mortgage besides the bond to Parker for the 500 l. and that this Mortgage is also assigned to the Defendants who are in the Possession and receive the profits thereof and it is proved that Sir Peter Courtny had half the said Money borrowed of Parker and that he and the said Humphry Noy had invited Francis Noy to one of Humphry Noys Tenants houses and there kept him up 2 days and 2 nights drinking and then when he was disguised with drink got him to make this Assignment without any consideration moving thereunto Note 1. That the said Defendants examined one Pascho to prove the said Assignment to be for Sir Peters Counter-security but he being proved by many Witnesses to be a man of infamous reputation and guilty of several felonies and to be then a Souldier in the Isle of Silly at the time of Sealing the said Deeds and is no witnesse thereto though he swears himself present at sealing thereof they the Defendants were ashamed to reade his Testimony Note 2. The Case as between the several Plaintiffs is only whether the Plaintiff William Noy as Executor of the Surviving Executor or the other Plaintiffs the Children as Administrator of the Executor that aliened the said Term as the Case is be intitled in Equity to have the premises in question It is therefore humbly hoped and prayed that the Dismission of the Plaintiffs Bill be set aside and that a Decree be made against the Defendant to re-convey the Premises so assigned by Francis Noy as above-mentioned to such of the Plaintiffs as shall appear to have most right to the same and that the Defendants deliver up the Deeds Evidences and Writings touching the premises and account for the profits thereof