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
Roberts conveyed the Mannor and Lands in question to the Defendant Tracy for payment thereof Payment of Debts and of his other debts but before that Conveyance to Tracy the Defendant Nicholas standing ingaged as Surety for the said Roberts for several of the debts the said Roberts made the said Nicholas a Lease of the premisses for Sixty years at a Pepper-Corn Rent and such Lease being made and no care taken for satisfying the debts the Plaintiffs Sue the said Roberts for their debts so to avoid such Prosecution made the aforesaid Conveyance to Tracy in Fee upon Special Trust to pay all his debts but Tracy combining with the Defendant Astrey who had procured the said Nicholas to assign his said Lease to him Notice of Trust after Notice of the Trust contrived a conveyance of the premisses from Tracy to him the said Astrey by way of Bargain and Sale Inrolled so that Astrey pretends himself a Purchasor of the premisses from the said Thomas Roberts and not under the said Deed of Trust or Lease and Assignment and pretends the Trust is destroyed the said Conveyance being not Inrolled whereas the said Deed was well executed and the Trust accepted by which the said Deed cannot in Equity be made void until payment of the said debts The Defendant Astrey insists Deed in Trust to pay debts tho' the Creditors are not Parties and no Certainty of Debts therein appearing yet good against an after-Purchasor who had Notice of this Trust That the Deed to Tracy for the payment of debts was a void Deed as against a Purchasor there being no Creditor party or privy thereto nor any Schedule of Debts thereunto annexed and that the said Conveyance was voluntary and made only between Roberts and his Wife and Tracy and the Creditors not parties thereto and that by the said Conveyance Roberts was to have all such Mony out of the premisses from time to time as he thought fit for the livelyhood and subsistence of himself his Wife and Family and that the said Conveyance to Tracy being voluntary Voluntary Conveyance and in its nature but in Trust for Roberts and Revokable by him after the Conveyance to Astrey and Roberts having exhibited a Bill against Tracy to set aside the said Conveyance Tracy surrendred the same to Roberts who Revoked it and both Cancell'd it and afterwards Roberts and his Wife conveyed the premisses to Astrey and levied a Fine thereon But the Plaintiff insists That after the Conveyance to Tracy was made he declared he would pay the Plaintiffs debts which is proved by the Plaintiff Sir John Knight The Defendant insists One of the Plaintiffs a Witness Deposition That Sir John Knight is interessed and intituled to some of the debts in question and continued a Plaintiff throughout the Cause and is not struck out of the Bill and is but a single Witness and his Evidence denied by the Defendants Answer and therefore his deposition ought not to be read This Court declared They would see Presidents where a Conveyance made voluntarily for payment of debts and no Creditors named or appearing in any fix'd certainty of the persons and with a Proviso for the Grantor to have Maintenance out of the premisses conveyed for himself and Family without limitation of how much whether such Conveyance be Revokable by the Grantor and Grantee This Court with the assistance of the Judges were clear of Opinion That the Deed from Thomas Roberts to Tracy and the Trust thereby created were made and treated with an honest Intention to pay the debts of the said Thomas Roberts and that the same was not fraudulent Fraudulent Deed or not though no certainty of the debts appear therein but the same being made on a Trust which was a good foundation and a just and honest Consideration and none of the Creditors complaining of any fraud the same ought to be taken as a good Deed and the Defendant Astrey coming in under this Deed and having Notice of this Trust and paying the debts under it ought to receive no countenance in this Court but the Estate ought to be charged with the same in whose hands soever the same shall come and decreed the Deed of Purchase from the said Roberts to Astrey be set aside and Astrey to account for the Profits c. and the Plaintiffs and all the Creditors to be paid their debts out of the said Estate Eyre contra Good al' 21 Car. 2. fo 211. THe Bill is to be relieved against a Bond of a 1000 l. Award penalty for the performance of an Award whereby possession and profits of Lands are awarded to the Defendant The Defendant insists That there was no surprize in the said Award but the said Award was by the direction of the Plaintiffs Friends and says it ought not to be set aside which if it was it would involve many Suits and insisted That the said Award is in the nature of an Agreement and ought to be performed This Court taking Notice Cross Bills about the setting aside or confirming an Award dismist and sent to Law that the Award in question was not made by the Order of this Court but that it proceeded from the voluntary Submission of the parties two Judges being chosen by themselves who declared their Opinion That they saw no cause to decree the Award to be set aside nor on the other side to confirm it or to relieve the Plaintiff but ordered both Bills to be dismist the Plaintiff electing to go to Law This was heard by Justice Tirrel This Cause came to be Re-heard before the Lord Keeper being assisted with Judge Wild who confirmed the Order above Hale contra Acton 21 Car. 2. fo 409. THat Edward Eltonhead by his Will gave the Defendant Mrs. Gilbourne 1000 l. to be first paid after his debts besides a Share out of the dividend of the Estate when as after the making the said Will the said Edward Eltonhead and Henry Gilbourne Father-in-Law to the Defendant Mary Gilbourne before her Marriage came to an Agreement for what the said Mary should have out of the said Estate and that there should be but 1100 l. and the same was to be in full of what was intended her thereout and that the said Edward Eltonhead often so declared and in his life-time paid 500 l. and after his death his Executor paid 100 l. more in pursuance of the said Agreement Devise by Will and an Agreement about a Portion not intended several Sums so as the chief Point then controverted being whether the said Defendant Mrs. Gilbourne ought to have the 1100 l. Portion and 1000 l. Legacy mentioned in her Fathers Will or that he intended to give her any more out of his Estate than the said 1100 l. The Master of the Rolls declared That the 1100 l. ought to be in full of what the Defendant Gilbourne was and ought to have out of the said Estate and decreed accordingly This Cause came
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
Deed made by the Plaintiff Eliz. in Feb. 1666. Frandulent Deed. before her Marriage with the Plaintiff Sir Philip Howard and that the Plaintiff Sir Philip in right of his said Wife might have all her benefit and interest in or to the Estate of Sir John Baker her former Husband and receive the Rents and profits of the premisses The Case being that Sir John Baker the Father being seized in Fee of Lands by two Deeds Tripartite of Lease and Release made between himself of the one part Sir Robert Newton deceased of the second and Sir John Baker the Son and Dame Eliz. the Plaintiff and sole Daughter of Sir Robert Newton of the third part in consideration of a Marriage between the Plaintiff Dame Eliz. and Sir John Baker the Son and 4000 l. portion conveyed the same to Sir Robert Newton and his Heirs part of which Lands were for the said Dame Eliz. Joynture and Sir John Baker the Father and Dame Mary his Wife being dead Sir John the Son sold part of the premisses for payment of debts part whereof was the Joynture of Dame Eliz. and in consideration of the said Dame Elizabeth joyning in such sale and parting with her Joynture Sir John her Husband in lieu thereof and of 1500 l. to be paid to Dame Elizabeth for a Joynture house limitted the premisses unsold to the said Dame Elizabeth and the Defendants for 400 years upon Trust by Sale thereof to pay the said Dame Elizabeth the said 1500 l. and also the Rents and profits of the whole until Sale and the residue of the said premisses remaining unsold to Dame Elizabeth during her life and after to wait on the Inheritance And in 1658 the Inheritance was conveyed to Sir Robert Newton and his Heirs and he by Will devised the same to the said Dame Elizabeth for life Remainder to the first Son of the Plaintiff Sir Philip and Dame Elizabeth so the Plaintiff being intituled to the 1500 l. and the term of 400 years after the Trusts performed and so ought in right of the said Dame Elizabeth his Lady to continue in the possession of the premisses and receive the Rents and profits thereof which the Defendants refused to do pretending the term of 400 years is limited to them upon other Trusts and in particular that the Plaintiff Dame Elizabeth before her Marriage to the Plaintiff Sir Philip by her Deed of the 9th of February 1666 Assigned to the Defendants all monies then due or to be payable to her by vertue of the Deed in Trust for her benefit and to be at her disposing during the Joynt lives of her and the said Sir Philip whether she Married or continued Sole and that she should have power by writing under her Hand and Seal to dispose thereof for the benefit of her Daughter by her former Husband and that she hath disposed thereof accordingly which said Deed the Plaintiff insists is fraudulent or with power of revocation and never mentioned to Sir Phillip and that Sir Philip after his Marriage setled 500 l. per Annum on the said Dame Elizabeth for a Joynture which he would not have done if he had known or understood the said Dame Elizabeth had made such Deed or disposition as aforesaid of her former Husbands Estate and since their Marriage she desired leave of Sir Philip that she might receive the Rents and profits of the said Lands of her former Husband without mentioning the said Deed and therefore the same ought to be set aside The Defendants do insist the said Dame Elizabeth before her Marriage with the said Philip did declare to him that who ever did Marry her should have no benefit of any Estate that she had by her former Husband and that Sir Philip did agree to bar himself thereof and take no benefit thereby A Widow makes a Deed of her former Husband Estate and marries the second Husband not privy to it the Deed set aside and the second Husband to enjoy the Estate and that Sir Robert Newton looking upon the Estate as setled on his Grand-children as aforesaid and had given his personal Estate and 700 l. per Annum to the Plaintiffs and their Sons and the said Sir Robert Newton never pretended right to the said Estate or intermedled therewith that there is no reason to set a side the said Deed of the 9th of Feb. aforesaid This Court being assisted with the Judges on reading the said Deed it not appearing unto this Court that the said Sir Philip had any notice of the said Deed 9th of Feb. 1666. till after the death of the said Sir Robert Newton which was several years after the Marriage nor was privy or consented to the making of any such Deed but haveing intimation that Dame Elizabeth intended to dispose of her interest in her former Husbands Estate from such Husband as she should Marry broka off the treaty of Marriage which was afterwards brought on again by some Friends of the said Dame Elizabeth and that the said Sir Philip was induced to Marry the said Dame Elizabeth upon the hopes and confidence of having the interest she had in the Estate of the said Sir John Baker her former Husband without which he would never have married her and that the said Sir Philip never knew of the said Deed of the 9th of Feb. 1666 but the same was a fraud upon Sir Phillip and that therefore no use ought to be made thereof and decreed the said Deed of the 9th of Feb. 1666 be absolutely set aside and no use to be made thereof against the said Sir Philip or any claiming under him Poter contra Habbert 24 Car. 2. fo 591. THis Bill is to have a redemption of a Mortgage made in 1636 Mortgage by the Plaintiffes Father to one Abraham Dawes for 5000 l. and for non-payment of the Mortgage mony Sir Thomas Dawes Son and Heir of the said Abraham Dawes entred in 1641 and he and his Assigns have ever since taken the profits And the Defendant insists that the said Thomas Dawes in 49 conveyed the mortgaged premisses to Hugh Hubbert the Defendants Father for 7000 l. and that in 1641 when Sir Thomas Dawes entred there was 5000 l. due on the Mortgage besides interest so he would be charged without 350 l. per Annum for mean profits since that time and would have 6 l. per Cent. Interest for the 7000 l. from the time it appearing on the conveyance This Cause being first heard by Judge Ransford who ordered the Plaintiffs to redeem Computation of interest monies according to the Statute in force and the account for the Interest of the 500 l. to begin from 1636 the time of lending the mony and from that to 1642 Interest to be paid according to Acts then in force and from 42 to 46 Interest at 8 l. and 4 l. per Cent. The Cause being heard again by the Lord Keeper Bridgeman assisted with Judge Tyrrle Morton and Wild who ordered the
said debt nevertheless that debt ought to be made good out of the said Pincheons Estate whatever and decreed accordingly Ramsden contra Farmer al' 28 Car. 2. fo 516. THat Simon Carill was seised in Fee of Lands Lands conveyed to Trustees for payment of Debt conveyed the same to Trustees to sell and dispose thereof for performance of his Will who by his Will devised the said premisses to the said Trustees and their Heirs to pay his debts and made Elizabeth his Wife his Executrix who afterwards married Mr. Barnes and the said Trustees with the consent of the said Elizabeth conveyed the premisses to Sir John Carill and others in Trust in the said Will Trust assigned and the said Barnes after died and the said Elizabeth married one Machell and by Deed 22 Car. 1. the said Trustees Carill c. with Elizabeth conveyed the said premisses to the said Machell and his Heirs and in 1646. the said Machell with the like consent conveyed to Duncombe Heath and Baldwin and their Heirs in Trust that they after the said Simons Debts and Legacies paid should convey to the said Elizabeth and her Heirs or to such as she by Deed or Will appoint That the said Elizabeth raised Monies and paid the said Simons Debts and Legacies and performed the said Will and after the said Machell's death Elizabeth by Will 1650. devised all the said premisses to her Son John Carill for life and after his decease to the first Son of the Body of the said Son lawfully begotten or to be begotten and to his Heirs And if her said Son should not have a Son but one or more Daughters then she devised the premisses to the first Daughter of the Body of her said Son and to her Heirs That the said John Carill in the said Elizabeths life time had a Son whose Name was John who died in her life time and soon after Elizabeth died and her said Son John Carill survived her and never had any other Son after Elizabeth Machells death and the said John Carill died and left the Plaintiff Lettice his eldest Daughter and the Defendant Elizabeth his second Daughter and the Defendant Margaret his third Daughter and the said Lettice the Plaintiff claims the premisses as eldest Daughter But the Defendants Elizabeth and Margaret insist They ought to have their equal parts with the Plaintiff Lettice in the premisses and that the said Simon had not power to make such Settlement or Will but say he was only seised for life of the premisses and that Elizabeth Machell joyned in the Settlement at her Son John Carill's Marriage and if there were such a Will of the said Elizabeth Machell yet the said John Carill had a Son named John Carill Construction of the words of a Will who was Born after the death of the said Elizabeth Machell and lived some time after her death without Issue and by the words of the Will the Trust is determined This Court not being satisfied as to the Birth and death of the said John Carill directed a Tryal on this Issue whether John Carill Grandson of Elizabeth Machell dyed during the Life of the said Elizabeth Machell or after her decease That upon a Tryal on the said Issue it was found that the said John Carill the Grandson outlived the said Elizabeth Trusts determined and therefore the Defendants insist that the Trust limited by the Will of the said Elizabeth Machell is fully determined This Court declared they saw no cause to relieve the Plaintiffs Bill in this matter and so dismist the Bill accordingly Salter contra Shadling 28 Car. 2. fo 66. THat Bryan late Lord Bishop of Winton being possest of the Mannor of Pottern by Lease from the Bishop of Salisbury Will. made to Sir Richard Chaworth in Trust for the said late Bishop of Winton by his Will Devised 200 l. per Annum should be paid out of the profits of the said Lease to William Salter the Plaintiffs late Husband his Nephew during his Life and that the Estate in Law in the said Lease should continue in Sir Richard Chaworth during his Life and the Surplusage of the profits he Devised to the said William Salter to whom he also Devised the Lease after Sir Richard Chaworths death and made Sir Richard Chaworth and others Executors who consented to the said Devise and about 16 Car. 2. William Salter made his Will and as to his Interest in Pottern he devised the same to Trustees that they should permit the Plaintiff to receive the profits during her Widdow-hood on Condition she renewed the Term to 21 years Construction upon the words of a Will once in seven years and if the Plaintiff should Marry or dye then he declared the profits of the Premises to go to his two Daughters Ann and Susanna and the Survivor of them and their Heirs and after their Deaths without Heirs of their Bodies then to his right Heirs and Devised all the rest of his Personal Estate should be to his Executors and Trustees for the benefit of his said Daughters and made the Plaintiff and the said Trustees Executors That the said two Daughters are since dead intestate and the Plaintiff being their Administrator is Intituled to the whole Term and Trust of the said Lease of Pottern as Administrator to her said two Daughters according to the said William Salters Will and the true Exposition thereof the same being devised in manner as aforesaid The defendant Charles Cleaver the Infant being Eldest Son and Heir of Dame Briana Cleaver deceased who was one of the Sisters and Coheirs of the said William Salter and the Defendant Stradlings Wife being his Sister and Coheir insist that according to William Salters Will and for that no present interest in Pottern was Devised to his two Daughters but only Contingent possibility of Interest in case the said Plaintiff should Marry or dye neither of which having since hapned and the said Daughters being since dead the Interest and Term in Pottern ought to come to them as Heirs to the said William Salter and not to the Plaintiff as Administratrix to her two Daughters the rather for that they consented to a decree for Sale of Lands which would have come to them as Heirs at Law to preserve Pottern from Sale for the payment of William Salters debts This Court declared that according to William Salters Will and the disposition therein made of Pottern the whole Interest of the said Term and Trust therein was well passed in the Plaintiff and that the Heirs of Salter can have nothing to do therewith nor have any Interest therein and Decreed the Plaintiff to enjoy the same against the Defendants Still contra Lynn al' 28 Car. 2. fo 195. Bill is to be relieved for 123. Acres of Land THat Philip Jacobson Deceased Settlement being possest of a Capital Messuage or Tenement and Lands by Lease from the Crown Dat. 13 Car. 1. for the Term of 60
by Will John Bassano taking notice of the aforesaid deed provides that in case Elizabeth his Wife were with Child of a Son then his Executors to pay to the Plaintiff Frances 300 l. but if a Daughter then he had otherwise provided for the Plaintiff Frances and such Daughter by deed and shortly after dyed leaving John Bassano his Son and Heir by a former Venter and shortly after the said Elizabeth the youngest Daughter was Born and died in a Month after and in 1666. Elizabeth the Mother dyed leaving the Plaintiff Frances whereupon John Bassano the younger took the Plaintiff Frances in Guardianship and having the said Will and Deed in his Custody pretended to her she had but 300 l. Portion left her by her Father That in 1669. the Plaintiff Tucker and the Plaintiff Frances inter-married and John Bassano still concealed the said Will and Deed that the Plaintiff Tucker and John Bassano the younger agreed that the 300 l. left to the Plaintiff Frances by her Father should be laid out on Security or Purchase for the benefit of the Plaintiff Frances for life in case she survived the Plaintiff Tucker and accordingly the Plaintiff Tucker Sealed a Deed 10th of December 1669. whereby the Plaintiff released the said 300 l. to the said Bassano the younger upon Trust and the said Bassano Covenants with the Plaintiff that he his Executors or Administrators should either continue the said 300 l. in his or their Hands at Interest or lay out and dispose of the same upon Security or Purchase and permit the Plaintiff Tucker during his life and the Plaintiff Frances during her life to receive the Interest and Benefit thereof and to the Plaintiff Tucker and his Heirs Executors c. That in 1671. Bassano the younger died and made the Defendant Searle his Executor and the said Searle refused to pay the said 300 l. pretending the want of Assets And the Plaintiff Tucker insists to have the said 300 l and interest to be chargeable out of the Walthamstow Lands in regard the said Lands were originally charged therewith but the Defendant the Executor says the said Lands are sold by him to one Woots and the Plaintiff Tucker insists that such Sale was without notice of the Plaintiffs Title and charge of the said 300 l. on the said Lands and that Woots had Collateral Security to secure him against the Plaintiff wherefore in regard the said Lands were Originally charged with 300 l. and the Plaintiffs were drawn in to accept of the said Covenant which is but a personal Security by the contrivance of Bassano the younger who kept the Plaintiff ignorant of the said Deed and Will for that the Plaintiffs Release is only upon Trust for payment of the said 300 l. the Plaintiffs do insist that in equity the said Lands ought still to be chargeable with the said 300 l. and interest and ought not to rely on the said Covenant The Defendant Searle insists that Bassano Junior by his Will devised the Walthamstow Lands to be Sold for payment of his Debts and Legacies which was Sold to Woots as aforesaid for 1260 l. and gave him Collateral Security by Bond of 1500 l. to secure him against the Plaintiffs demands and that the whole Personal Estate of the said Bassano Junior by Sale of Lands and otherwise fell short to pay the Plaintiffs demands the said Searle the Executor having paid Debts of a higher nature and say that the Plaintiff cannot have their whole demands but must come in proportion with other Creditors And the Defendant insists That the Walthamstow Lands ought not to be charged with the said 300 l. for that on a Bill in this Court exhibited by the Plaintiff against Bassano Senior whereby the Portions of the two Elizabeths Sisters of the Plaintiff Frances were demanded to be chargeable on Walthamstow Lands and alledged that Bassano Junior had secured the 300 l. being the Plaintiff Frances Portion by the said deed of Covenant and prayed to have the said two Elizabeth's Portions or the value of the Lands deducting the 300 l. secured to the Plaintiff Frances and in October 25. Car. 2. it was decreed that the Plaintiff should have the 300 l. which belonged to the youngest Elizabeth and the said Lands to be chargeable therewith But the Court then declared they could not decree the 300 l. claimed by the said Plaintiff Frances in her own right but that she must rely on the said Deed of Covenant Defect in a Bill for that they did not complain thereof by their Bill And the Defendant insists that the said decree being Signed and Inrolled the said 300 l. ought not to be charged on the said Lands but that they ought to rely on the said deed of Covenant they having thereby released the said Lands That the Defendant Searles cross Bill is for relief against a Bond of 600 l. on which he is Sued at Law and for Equity did insist Cross Bill for Creditors to take their proportionable shares but the debts having been paid to them and releases given dismist That he was Sued here by the Plaintiff Tucker and his Wife for the 300 l. aforesaid and that there was a decree against him in this Court at the Suit of one Whitton one of the Defendants to that Bill for 700 l. so that if the Plaintiff Tucker and other Creditors should recover their demands there will not be Assets and therefore prayed that the Plaintiff Tucker and Callwall might take their proportionable shares of what Assets was left but the Plaintiff Tucker insisted that the said 300 l. was originally charged on Walthamstow Lands by the said Marriage Settlement and was not discharged by the said Covenant or Release The said other Creditors Callwall c. insists That they have a Verdict against Searle the Executor for the Money due on the said Bond upon Evidence of Assets in Hands and had taken him in Execution and he had paid the said Money thereon and the said Creditors had released the said debts and therefore ought not to be farther troubled for the same This Court declared Lands originally charged with the payment of Portion and a release and covenant in Trust doth not discharge the same the said Walthamstow Lands were originally charged with the Plaintiffs 300 l. and that the said deed of Release and Covenant being made only in Trust for payment of the said Money and when the Plaintiffs were not told of the said Deed and Will did not discharge the same but the said Lands ought to make it good without damages although there were not Assets in the Executors Hands in regard the said Lands were sold under notice of the Plaintiffs demands and further declared he could not relieve the said Searle as against the said Callwall for that he by Coertion of Law had paid the Money recovered against him and the said Callwall had released the same to him and dismist Searles Bill Annand contra Honywood 32 Car. 2. fo
if he were intituled to a Bill of Revivor he could not revive for Costs there being no Decree inrolled This Court allowed the Defendants Demurrer and dismist the Plaintiffs Bill of Revivor Raymond contra Paroch Buttolphs Aldgate in Com. Midd. 32 Car. 2. fo 517. THe Plaintiff being one of the Kings Waiters in the Port of London Priviledge and yet used the Trade of a Common Brewer and executed his said place by a Deputy The Defendants insist He is not to be exempted from bearing the Office of Overseer of the poor in the Parish The Plaintiff insists That the Kings Officers who serve his Majesty in Relation to his Revenue ought to be exempted from Parish Offices though they executed their places by Deputy and use an other Trade they being still liable to answer any misdemeaner committed by their Deputies and if their Deputies should be absent at any time they are bound to execute the same themselves which often falls out and Presidents of this Nature have often been found and hopes this Court will not take away any the priviledges such Officers ought to enjoy in right of their Offices and that a Supersedeas of priviledge be allowed the Plaintiff and his Writ of priviledge stand The Defendants insist That the Plaintiff driving a Trade of a Common Brewer and getting Money in the Parish he ought to bear the Offices of the Parish notwithstanding his said Office and if any Priviledge were due it ought to be granted by the Court of Exchequer and not by this Court This Court declared The Kings Officer priviledge from Parish Offices tho' he drive a Trade in the Parish That the Kings Officers ought to have the benefit of their priviledge and the execution thereof by a Deputy nor his dealing in another Trade should not in any sort be prejudicial to him he being to answer for any neglect or misdemeanour committed by his Deputy for that it is not reasonable that the Kings Servants or Officers should have nothing else to subsist on Such priviledge grantable out of Chancery as well as Exchequer but their immediate Services or Places under his Majesty and take no other imployment on them and although a priviledge of that nature be grantable in the Exchequer a Writ of priviledge under the great Seal was and ought to be taken in all respects as effectual and therefore allowed the Plaintiff his priviledge Dominus Bruce contra Gape 32 Car. 2. fo 723. THe question in this case is Deed. Will. Revocation whether the Mannour of Mudghill is within the devise of the Duke of Somerset by his Will in August 1657. of the Residue of the Estate unsold for the benefit of his three Daughters and the Lady Bruce his Grand-Child or whether it belongs to the Lady Bruce only as Heir at Law and whether the same be liable and comprehended in the Trust together with other Manours and Lands to Satisfie the 19100 l. Debts only or is subject with the other Lands in the said Deed and Will for Satisfaction of all the debts of the said Duke William The Case is viz. that the Plaintiff the Lady Elizabeth Wife of the Lord Bruce is Grand child and Heir of William late Duke of Somerset and Sister and next Heir of William also late Duke of Somerset who was the only Son of Henry Lord Beauchamp the Eldest Son of William Duke of Somerset the Grandfather which said Duke William the Grandfather did by deed the 13 Nov. 1652. Convey to the Lord Seymour Sir Olando Bridgman c. and their Heirs the Mannour and Lands in Trust for payment of Moneys to the Lord John Seymour and the Lady Jane Seymour Then upon further Trust to pay Debts amounting to 19100 l. and after in Trust for raising 10000 l. for the Lord John Seymour and 6000 l. for the Lady Jane Seymour and Trustees to account yearly to the right and next Heir of the said Duke with a power of Revocation in the said deed as to all but the said 19100 l. debts and that the said Duke William 19th of April 1654. as to a further provision for the payment of the Debts by deed conveyed to the Earl of Winchelsea and the Defendant Gape and others and their Heirs the Lands in Wilts and Somerset worth 30000 l. and sufficient to pay all his Debts to himself for life and after for payment of Annuities and after his death then to the use of the last Trustees and their Heirs upon special Trust that they should lease out the premisses and with the Mony thereby raised and otherwise with the profits pay all such Debts for which the Plaintiff stood ingaged for the said Duke and that the overplus of the said Mony and Profits to be paid and the Lands unsold to be conveyed to the right Heirs of the said Duke wherein was a power reserved in the said Duke by deed or Will to revoke the said Uses or Trust That the said Duke by deed the 20 of April 1654. reciting that the Lord Beauchamp the Eldest Son died since the deed of the 13 of November 1652. and had left only one Son and the Plaintiff Lady Bruce and that the Lady Bruce was left unprovided for and reciting the deed of the 19 of April 1654. made an Additional provision for the payment of his debts which made the Lands the deed of 1652. of a greater value than would satisfie the said Trust and therefore appointed the last Trustees in the deed of 1652. should out of the Money to be raised by Sail of those Land and the profits thereof pay the Plaintiff Elizabeth Lady Bruce 100 l. per Annum till her Age of 17 and after 300 l. per Annum and then after the debts in the deed of 1652. and Portions to the Lord John and Lady Jane Seymour then to pay Elizabeth the the Lady Bruce 6000 l. portion also with power of Revocation That afterwards the said Duke by Will 15 of August 1657. having as aforesaid secured the said 19100 l. debts devised to his Son the Lord John Seymour and the Heirs Males of his Body the said Mannour of Mudghill and because the Lady Ann Beauchamp his Sister in Law had the same as part of her Joynture and the same was Leased out for the life of Pleydall his Will was that till the same fell in possessision to the Lord Seymour the Trustees in the deed of 1652. should pay him maintenance and they to convey to him when they thought fit and by the said Will taking notice of the deed in 1652. and of the 19 of April 1654. and also of his power of Revocation appointed and declared the Trusts in those deeds for his Grandson William Lord Beauchamp and the Plaintiff the Lady Elizabeth Bruce or for the benefit of his Right Heirs should cease and the same was thereby revoked and appointed the Trustees in those deeds to convey the said premisses to the Lady Frances his Wife and the Earl of
South-hampton and the Earl of Winchelsey and Sir Orlando Bridgman and the said Gape and others and their Heirs upon Trust as to Mudghill as he before had declared and as to the rest of the Mannours and Lands on Trust for payment of all such debts in the said Indentures to be paid and unpaid at his death and for freeing his personal Estate and Executors from the payment thereof and of the Trust in the Deed of 1652 for the Lady Jane Seymour and after these Trusts performed all the Lands unsold and the Reversion thereof be disposed by the Lady Dutchess of Sommerset his Wife and the Trustees by his Will and their Heirs for 21 years from his death to such as the said Lady Dutchess should appoint and in default of such appointment for the raising such sums of Mony for the Plaintiff Elizabeth's portion and maintenance as the Deed of the 20 of April 1654 appoints or in default of such appointment by the Dutchess to go to such Person to whom the Trust of the Inheritance of the premisses after the 21 years is limited by the Will and the conveyance so to be made to the said Dutchess and the other person named in his Will should be upon further Trust that the said Dutchess and the other person should stand seized of the said Lands unsold and the Reversion of such part thereof as should be leased out for lives or years in Trust for William Lord Beauchamp and the Heirs Males of his Body and for want of such Issue forthe benefit of John Lord Seymour for life and after for the benefit of the first and every other Son of his Body and the Heirs Males of their Bodies respectively and for default of such Issue for the benefit of all his Daughters and the Plaintiff the Lady Elizabeth Bruce his Grandchild and all the Daughters of John Lord Seymour and their Heirs equally as Tenants in common and not as Joynt Tenants which Will the said Duke in 1660 ratified by new publishing thereof and all the Trustees in the deed of 1652 being dead except Sir Orlando Bridgman and Gape and the interest in Law being in them by Survivor ship Sir Orlando Bridgman knowing the debts in the deed of 1652 to be paid conveyed all the Lands therein mentioned to the said Dutchess of Sommerset That in 1671 the said William Lord Beauchamp Duke of Sommerset died without Issue whose Heir the Plaintiff the Lady Bruce is and after the Lord John Seymour became Duke of Sommerset and died without Issue by whose death the Plaintiff the Lady Bruce is intituled as Heir to Duke William her Grandfather to the reversion in fee of Mudghill Duke John being only Tenant in Tail thereof and ought to injoy the same it not being liable to pay any debts but is discharged thereof by her Grandfathers Will and not disposed from her by any Act the 19100 l. being all paid So that the questions now before the Court were whether the reversion of Mudghill expectant upon Pleydalls Estate for life as well as the residue of the Estate be liable to all the debts which Duke William owed at his death or only to the 19100 l. debts And secondly Whether the reversion of Mudghill as well as the residue of the Estate after satisfaction of all the debts of Duke William ought to be for the benefit of all Duke Williams Daughters and the Plaintiff Lady Bruce and their Heirs equally or the said reversion to go intirely to the said Lady Bruce as right Heir to Duke William As to the first question the Defendant insisted the said Reversion as well as the other Estate is liable to all the debts for that by the deed of 1652. Mudghill was conveyed for raising of Money for the payment of 19100 l. debts and all other debts that he should owe at the time of his death in which deed it is provided that after the said debts be paid he might by any deed or his last Will Revoke all or any of the said Trusts other than as concerning the 19100. debts yet made no Revocation other than by his last Will and therein he Revoked only those Trusts that were for the benefit of the Lord Beauchamp or the Lady Elizabeth Seymour or his own right Heirs and by the said deed the Legal Estate in Mudghill is setled in the Trustees and their Heirs and the Duke had no power to Revoke the uses or Estates till after the 19100 l. was paid and the said Duke directing his Trustees to convey Mudghill to his Son John he did thereby dispose of an equitable interest only of the reversion of Mudghill and the 19100 l. was not paid in the said Dukes life-time but great part remains unpaid and he hath contracted several new debts since the 20th of April 1654. which the Defendant since paid upon the Securities of the said Lands and Mudghill is one of the Mannours conveyed by the deed of 1652. for the payment of 19100 l. and all other the debts he should owe at the time of his death and altho' the same be directed by the last Will of the said Duke to be setled upon the Lord John Seymour and his Heirs Males yet the said Duke by deed of 1652. had no power to revoke the same for the payment of his debts or if he had he did not revoke the same by the said Will but left Mudghill and other the premisses subject to the payment of his debts and the Trustees understanding such to be the Dukes intention never setled Mudghill on the said Lord John Seymour who being lately dead without Issue the same is subjected to the payment of the said Duke Williams debts and when debts are satisfied the overplus of the Moneys and the said Mudghill and all other the premisses ought to be divided according to the intent of the said Dukes Will and by the said Dukes death and the Releases of the said Trustees the interest in Law became vested in Sir Orlando Bridgman and he conveyed Mudghill c. unto the said Dutchess and the said Gape and other the Trustees and their Heirs that they might therewith pay the said debts and though there be sufficient besides Mudghill to pay all the debts yet by the Will upon which this question doth arise that thereby the Trust for the Right Heirs of the said Duke are revoked in express Terms so that by any deed preceding the said Will the Plaintiff the Lady Bruce cannot claim any advantage as Heir the rather for that by the Will it doth appear that Duke William had an equal regard to his own Daughter and the Plaintiff the Lady Bruce his Grandchild and Heir and it cannot be presumed that he would more concern himself for the Welfare of a Grand-daughter than his own Daughters nor was the said Reversion of Mudghill disposed to the Plaintiff by any words in the Will though he did by express words in his Will Revoke all Trusts for the benefit of his Heirs in
Mudghill as well as the other Lands and made other particular provisions further which shews he did not intend that for her for if he had he would not have Revoked the former Trusts as to that by which she would have been intituled as Heir especially when he hath devised all the Surplus of his Estate which involves Mudghill as well as the rest amongst his own three Daughters and her equally nor doth it any where appear that Mudghill is in any sort exempted from Satisfaction of the Creditors nor could it so be by the said deed made by Sir Olando Bridgman who best knew the intention of all Parties in this matter But the Plaintiffs insisted That the said Duke could not intend Mudghill should be conveyed to the uses declared in the Will for that the same is to be conveyed to the said Lord John and the Heirs Males of his Body which is an Estate of Inheritance and he had power by a common Recovery to have bound the remainder and the reversion after the Estate tale is not Assets in Law and therefore cannot be conceived for the payment of his debts and the rather for that he recites deeds in 1652. and April 1654. and directs the Trustees therein to convey all his Lands and Mannours in those deeds to his Dutchess and others as to the Mannour of Mudghill as before he declared by his Will and as to all the rest of the Mannours he declared for the payment of his Debts so that all the rest excludes the Mannours of Mudghill and upon the whole Will it doth appear the Duke intended no Reversion should pass but Reversions after Estates for life or years and therefore this Reversion of Mudghill which is after an Estate Tail doth not pass and if it had been intended to pass he would have limited it to the said Lord John for life without remainder to his first or other Sons in Tail for he had before given him a better Estate in Mudghill to him and the Heirs of his Body and the Trustees were not to settle Mudghill accordingly until the same fell in possession the same being yet for Pleydalls life This Court on reading the several Deeds and Will declared That although the Lord John might possibly have an Estate Tail in him and doct it but he not doing it this Court can take no notice of it though probably he did forbear to do it because Duke William had Signified his desire Reversion after an Estate in Tail subject to Trusts for payment of debts that he should not have an Estate executed to him till it should fall in possession and not before except the Trustees pleased But the case must be taken as it doth appear before the Court that is Mudghill was once liable to the payment of the Debts of Duke William and tho' 't is pretended that the Will hath taken out Mudghill yet the said Will doth only take out an Estate Tail but the Revesion thereof when the same falls in possession is subject to the same Trust and goes in company with the other Reversions and the same is legally conveyed and doth pass in the general words and therefore this Court is of Opinion that the Reversion of Mudghill is part of the unrevoked Estate and that the Lord Bridgman did well when he made the said Conveyance to the Lady Dutchess and that when the 19100. l. and the said other debts are paid to which Mudghill is as well liable as the other Mannours and Lands then the Trustees ought to convey all the premisses in Fourths and decreed accordingly Maddocks contra Wren 32 Car. 2. fo 22. THe question in this Cause is Mortgage Account with what profits the Defendant Wren shall be charged in ease of the Plaintiff who claims the premisses in question by virtue of a second Mortgage and is admitted to a Redemption on payment of what shall appear due to the Defendant Wren who hath the prior Mortgage The Plaintiff insists That the said Mortgage being of a Lease and the Defendant Wren having possession by Attornment of Tenants he ought to have received the profits whereby his Mortgage would have been fully satisfied yet he permitted the other Plaintiff Dorothy Wife of the Plaintiff Maddox the Mortgager to receive the same and therefore the said Wren ought to be charged whereby the Plaintiff may be let in to have Satisfaction of his Debt This Court declared The prior Mortgagee upon Redemption by the second Mortgagee shall be charged with the profits by whom soever Received after the Second Mortgage That the Defendant Wren ought to be charged with the Rent whether received by the Wife or any other Person after the Plaintiffs second Mortgage made but all received by her before the said second Mortgage he ought not to be charged Coles contra Hancock 32 Car. 2. fo 112. THat Benjamin Coles the 11th of June Revocation of a Will 1678. made his Will in writing and thereby gave to and amongst his then Children naming them viz. Benjamin Samuel Mary and Hannah Portions and appointed his Real Estate to be Sold and added to his Personal Estate and made Elizabeth his Wife his Executrix and the Testator being a Melancholy Person and fearing he might forfeit his Estate by making himself away to prevent a forfeiture by deed the 14 of June 1678. made over all his Personal Estate to Trustees first to pay his debts then to pay some Legacies and all the rest of his Estate to be divided amongst the aforesaid four Children That the Testator afterwards died a natural death but before his death had another Child viz. Sarah who is not provided for either by the said Will or Deed. The question is whether the said Will be Revoked by the said Deed of Trust that if it be Revoked then the said Sarah insists to have her share of her Fathers Estate and that he ought to be looked upon as dying Intestate and at least the Personal Estate ought to be distributed by the Act for distributing Intestates Estates and the deed ought not to stand in her way for that great part of the Estate did consist in debts which were made after the said deed and did not pass to or was vested in the said Trustees and that it is against Natural Right and Conscience that her Father leaving a considerable Estate she should have nothing of it This Court on reading the said Deed and Will is of opinion A Deed of Trust no Revocation of a Will that the said deed of Trust is no Revocation of the said Will being not made with intent to revoke the same but only to prevent the forfeiture in a case which never hapned and Decreed the same to be set aside and the Personal Estate to be distributed according to the Will and the remainder to be divided amongst the four Children Benjamin Samuel Mary and Hannah Estate Devised to be sold for increase of his Childrens Portions and a Child
and determined by his death and therefore ought not to be Revived against the Defendant his Heirs nor is his Real Estate in the hands of his Heir chargeable with the Personal duty or Decree for a Personal duty The Plaintiff insisted This is a Case of Extremity being on the behalf of a Charity and the Defendant endeavours to deprive the Plaintiff of 2000 l. given for the purchasing a 100 l. per Annum for Maintenance of two Fellows of a Colledge His Lordship declared That the Decree being for a personal Duty ought not to be revived against the Defendant as Heir and allowed the Demurrer and dismist the Bill Domina Dacres contra Chute 34 Car. 2. fo 861. THe matter controverted is touching Costs Costs the Plaintiff had a Decree against the Defendants Father deceased and that the Plaintiff should have her Costs of that Suit and the said Cost being taxed they became part of that Decree as much as if they had been named in the Decree in certainty The Defendant insisted That upon the first hearing Costs were only reserved till after Report and upon hearing Exceptions to that Report nothing was said touching Costs but in the Order of confirming the last Report in that Cause Costs are directed to be taxed but the Defendants Father by name was to pay them and by the Decree as it is inrolled the Reversion of the Lands in question was directed to stand charged with the Debts and Damages but not with the Costs and the Costs were given as a personal thing and died with the Defendants said Father and cannot affect the said Estate which was the Grandfathers and the Plaintiff could not have revived her Suit for the Costs alone This Court declared A Suit cannot be revived for Costs alone where no duty is decreed That tho' it may be true that a Suit cannot be revived for Costs alone where there is no duty decreed because it is the Latches of the party not to get them taxed where there is nothing else in demand Yet when there is a duty decreed and Costs awarded by the same Decree which is signed and inrolled in the life of the party it would be unreasonable that by the Defendants delaying the Account the Costs should be lost which could not properly be taxed till the final Decree and when the charge of Suit is at an end And this Court further declared That the Costs when taxed may be recovered out of the Assets as in the Case of Heirs and Executors at the Common Law and this Court looks upon the wording of the Decree in that manner to proceed from the difference between the Debt and Costs the Debt not being chargable upon the person at all and the Costs chargable upon the person as well as the Assets and it were unjust to expound the Decree by charging the person to discharge the Assets from payment of Costs to which they are naturally chargable unless they have been paid by the Defendants Father This Court therefore thought fit Costs from their time of being Taxed to carry Interest and shall charge and be recovered out of the Assets that the Costs from the time that they were taxed should carry Interest and charge the Assets by discent and ordered the Account to be taken by the Master accordingly Windham contra Jennings 34 Car. 2. fo 776. THat Sir George Crook Mortgaged Lands in 28 Car. 2. Mortgage for 2000 l. before which time the Mortgagor borrowed of him that was after the Mortgagee 300 l. which was agreed to be secured by the said Morgage both sums must be paid upon the Redemption to the Defendant for 2000 l. and died and the Plaintiff being his Heir prays a Redemption But the Defendant insists That the said Sir George Crook before the Mortgage borrowed of the Defendant 300 l. on Bond viz. in 1672 and the Defendant insists it was agreed to be secured also by the said Mortgage but the Plaintiff is not willing to pay that only will redeem the Mortgage This Court decreed the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant both the 2000 l. and the 300 l. and then the Plaintiff to redeem Noell al' contra Robinson 34 Car. 2. fo 168 178. THe Case being viz. That Sir Martin Noel deceased Father of the Plaintiff Bill to answer to Devisees being seised in Fee of a moyety of a Plantation in the Barbados called Horn hall with the appurtenances and being legally intituled by the Laws and Customs of the said Island to dispose thereof by his Will in writing devised the same unto the Plaintiffs Nathaniel Grace Elizabeth and one Theodorus Noell and Sir Martin by his Will appointed the Defendant Robinson to supply the said Plantation with all necessaries during the Minorities of the Plaintiffs and to receive the profits in trust for the Plaintiffs and for his care therein gives him an allowance and made his Son Martin Noell and Theodorus Noell deceased and the Defendant Robinson his Executors and the Defendant Robinson proved the Will and took on him the Execution thereof and management of the Plantation and assented to the Legacy and Bequests of the Plaintiffs and in performance of such Trust and Assent leased the premisses to one John Worsam for 20 years at 20000 l. weight of Sugars Rent per Annum in the Trust for the Plaintiffs the Devisees and since have conveyed away the same to one Falkner and others to defeat the Plaintiffs so the Bill is to call the Defendant Robinson and Falkner to Account for the profits of the premisses and to convey their Interest to the Plaintiffs The Defendants insists That by the Custom of the said Island of Barbado's where the said premisses are the said Sir Martin had not power to make such Devise of the premisses to the Plaintiffs he being then much indebted to several persons and the said Defendant Robinson had paid several debts for him and insists Thar the said Lease made to Worsam was done without due consideration and not with any intent thereby to assent to the Legacy to the Plaintiffs and deprive the Creditors of their just debts or in any sort to exempt the Estate there from nor had no reason so to do he being bound with the Testator in several Securities to several persons in several sums of Mony and imployed all the profits he received as also 500 and odd pounds for Worsams Lease for the payment of Sir Martins debts amounting to 30000 l. and so the Testators Estate ought to pay debts and not to be subject to his Will and the said Defendant believing the premisses to be as Lands of Inheritance made the said Lease to Worsam a Creditor of Sir Martins but is since advised it is a Chattel and lyable to the payment of his debts But the Plaintiffs insisted That by the said Lease to Worsam and reservation of the Rent thereon to himself in Trust for the Plaintiffs he had placed the Estate in such manner that
or their Testator could not come sooner than when the Title was cleared Mean profits Decreed tho' a long time since and the Objection raised from the shortness of the former decree is not material to prejudice the Plaintiffs demand for that there could not then be any decree for profits the said Sir James pretending Title as Tenant in Tail Account for the mean profits from the time the right accrewed and that Sir Thomas was but Tenant for life so now the Right being cleared the Plaintiff ought to have an account of the mean profits from the time the Right accrewed and decreed accordingly The Defendant Appealing from the said Decree made by the Lord Chancellor Finch to the Lord Keeper North the Case was heard ab integro and the Lord Keeper on hearing the decree in 1650. and the decree of the Lord Finch read declared that there was nothing in the case but the loss of time and though the Decree in 1650. The mean profits tho' omitted in a former decree decreed now was silent as to the mean profits yet the same ought to be no Objection to the Right and though it was omitted by the Decree in 1650. yet it ought in Justice to have been decreed for the mean profits as well as for the right of the Title it being an accessary to the decree and it ought to be judged nunc pro tunc there being no Bar against it and confirmed the Decree made by the Lord Finch Girling contra Dom ' Lowther al' 34 Car. 2. fo 148. THat Sir Thomas Leigh deceased late Father of the Defendants John Thomas and Woolley Leigh became indebted to Edmond Girling deceased in several Sums of mony by Bonds and the said Girling became bound for the said Sir Thomas for several great Sums of mony against which Securities Sir Thomas gave the said Girling Counterbonds and in Hillary Term 28 Car. 2. Sir Thomas gave a Judgment of 1000 l. to the said Girling for the payment of 530 l. and in Aug. 1669. Sir Thomas made his last Will in writing and thereby devised to the Defendants Sir John Lowther John Currance and Edward Badby Executors of his said Will several Lands Lands and Tenements for the payment of his debts and to be by them sold for that purpose That the Swan Inn in St. Martins Lane being sold there ariseth a Question touching the Mony raised by such Sale whether it were well applied or not The Case being viz. That Sir Thomas Leigh upon his Marriage with Hannah Relfe Daughter of Anthony Relfe whilst he was under Age by Articles previous to the said Marriage with the said Hannah agreed to settle on himself and the said Hanuah his intended Wife and such as they should have between them Lands of 700 l. and in Consideration thereof the said Anthony Relfe was to settle and did settle upon the said Thomas and his Heirs Lands of 200 l. per Annum whereupon Sir Thomas Leigh July 1661. makes a Settlement upon himself and the said Hannah his intended Wife and their first second and other Sons in Tail his Mannor of Addington and other Lands in Addington and several Lands in Com' Surrey and Keut That afterwards in May 1665. Sir Thomas Leigh mortgaged to Mr. Peck for 2000 l. several Lands in Middlesex and Norfolk and afterwards in December 1665. those Lands and the moiety of the Swan Inn in St. Martins and the Reversion thereof were granted to Trustees upon several Trusts which by Deed 15 June 1668. appears to be performed and satisfied and thereupon on the same 15 June 1668. the said premisses were mortgaged to Sir John Lowther for 2500 l. which 2500 l. was raised and paid to Sir John Lowther out of the profits and by sale of the said Swan Inn which was formerly by voluntary Conveyance dated and setled by the said Sir Thomas Leigh upon the two Defendants Thomas and Woolley Leigh for Natural love and affection Voluntary Settlement That Sir John Lowther in April 1679. assigned the said Mortgage by conveying to one Burton and others the Mannor of Thorpe in Surrey and Shoelands and other premisses in Trust for the payment of such of the debts of Sir Thomas Leigh as should any ways incumber or disturb the Purchaser of the Swan Inn which said Lands are sufficient to pay the Plaintiffs debts and the Testators Ingagement being 1331 l. which debt is to be paid the Plaintiff by Decree of this Court The Defendants the Leighs insist That the Mony raised by the sale of the Swan Inn although paid to redeem the other Estate in mortgage to Sir John Lowther ought not to be applied so that the Land ought to be discharged of the Mortgage-mony or of what was paid to redeem the same but the said Lands ought still to be a Security for the said Mony to the use of the younger Children for whose benefit the said Swan Inn was setled and although the said Settlement was voluntary yet the same being a provision for younger Children ought not to be adjudged fraudulent as to a subsequent Judgment which the Paintiffs is or however not as to a subsequent voluntary Devise of their Father under which only the Creditors by Bond come in and therefore as to them the said mortgaged Lands ought to be charged with the said Mony raised by the sale of the said Swan Inn with Interest since it was paid to redeem the said Estate precedent to any benefit any Creditor by Bond can have out of the said Lands This Court declared Voluntary Conveyance though a provision for younger Children not to prevent satisfaction of subsequent Judgments That the said voluntary Conveyance ought not to stand in the way to prevent satisfaction of a subsequent Judgment for good Considerations and that the Monies due on the Plaintiffs Judgment and the Monies raised by sale of the Swan Inn was well applied to discharge the Mortgage on the other Estate whereby the mony due on the Judgment with Interest may be the more speedily raised by sale thereof and the mony raised by sale of the said Inn after the Judgment satisfied with Interest ought to stand secur'd for the benefit of the younger Children Mony applied to take off Mortgages satisfie Judgments and after to pay Bond-Creditors and be raised by sale of the said Estate and by Rents and Profits in the mean time precedent to the other Creditors not on Judgment and after the said Judgment and provision for the younger Children satisfied the residue to be applied to the other Creditors and decreed accordingly Comes Arglas contra Henry Muschamp 35 Car. 2. fo 524. THat Thomas Relief against over-reaching Bargains first Earl of Arglas the now Plaintiffs Father and William Earl of Arglas the Plaintiffs Brother were seised in Fee of the premisses in question and made divers Settlements thereof by which in case of failure of Issue Male of the said William the said Estate should come to
Rent-charge devised in lieu of a Joynture and by the same Will an implicit Devise of Lands to her Decreed she shall have only the 200 l. per Annum 64 Parol Declaration of ones Intent not good against a Declaration in Writing 78 Deed tho' Cancelled yet good 100 Demurrer to a Bill of Discovery whether the Defendant be married or not good for that if she be married it s a forfeiture of the Estate 68 Bill to discover Settlements in Trust Plea That the Defendant was a Scrivener and had taken Oath not to discover the Secrets of his Clients Overruled 29 E DEfendant in what cases not to be Examined upon Interrogatories 16 Estate Personal Trustees lay out the the Monies of an Infant to purchase Lands in Fee this shall be abcounted part of his Personal Estate he dying a Minor 377 Personal Estate not specifically devised to be applied to the payment of Debts and the Real Estate not subject thereto 383 Remainder of a Personal Estate devised after Issue to J. S. a void Remainder 66 Articles of a Purchase and 600 l. paid Contractor dies before any Conveyance executed it was accounted part of his Personal Estate 139 F FOreign Attachment London 109 Fraudulent Deed or not 33 A Widow makes a Deed of her former Husbands Estate and marries the second Husband not privy to it the Deed set aside and the second Husband to enjoy the Estate 1 G GVardian takes Bond in his own name for Arrears of Rent by this the Guardian hath made it his own debt 97 H A Residue of a Term after Debts paid and a Life determined decreed not to the residuary Legatee but the Heir 296 No Re-hearing after a Decree Signed and Inrolled 361 The Heir relieved against a Contingent Contract made in his Fathers life time because it seemed unconscionable Marriage Agreement to have Mony laid out in Lands for a Joynture to such Vses 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 400 Portion devised upon a Contingency of dying or Marriage decreed to be paid into Court for the benefit of the Heir if the Devisees dye 150 Persons by Habeas-corpus brought to Bristol and turned over to the Fleet for that he was in Contempt 151 I. THe certain profits of the premisses set against the Interest Interest upon Interest decreed 82 286 Where there is no Contingency of Survivorship but the Interest presently vests 133 Plaintff not relieved against a Judgment entred into 60 years ago and no consideration proved 54 From what time of the entring Judgment to be accounted 90 Examination of the actual entry of a Judgment in Chancery to what purpose 91 Judgments to Attach Lands according to the Priority of Originals 148 K. THe Kings Officer previledged from Parish Offices tho' he drive a Trade in the Parish 197 L. OF Leases to attend the Inheritance 233 243 273 Legacy vid. Wills Difference between a Legacy and a Trust 288 Who are Servants capable to receive Legacies by the general words to all my Servants c. Legacies to Poor Kindred how far to be Extended 395 Estate decreed to the residuary Legatee and not to the Administrator 100 Legacies given by a Will and a Codicil are distinct and not the same 74 Land Legatees and Mony Legatees decreed to abate in proportion 155 Legacy to be paid at 16 Legatee dies before her Administrator shall not receive it till the 16 years end 191 Legatee dies before payment of his Legacy yet payable to his next of Kin 98 Legacies devised to such who shall be his Servants at the time of his death who shall be said to be such Servants 101 Two Legatees and if either dye then to the Survivor one dies in the life of the Testator the Survivor shall have all 188 What Amounts to an Assent to a Legacy 250 Difference between a Lease which is to commence after failure of payment and a Mortgage with a Condition subsequent 54 Limitation of a Trust for the Heirs Males void and the benefit of the Trust belongs to the Executor 58 Defect of Livery and Seision aided in Chancery 250 M BIll to enforce the Lord of a Mannor to receive a Petition in nature of a Writ of false Judgment to reverse a common Recovery demurred to and the Demurrer allowed 387 Of Marriages by consent 24 95 366 Marriage Agreement provided if the Wife claims any of the personal Estate by the Custom of the Province of York then the Estate to go to other uses decreed she is bound by the said Settlement and ought not to claim any part of the personal Estate 251 Mean profits decreed tho' a long time since the mean profits tho' omitted in a former Decree yet decreed in a Later 261 The prior Mortgagee upon redemption by the second Mortgagee shall be charged with the profits by whomsoever received after the second Mortgage 209 Mortgage for 2000 l. before which time the Mortgagor borrowed of him that was afterwards Mortgagee 300 l. which was agreed should be secured by the said Mortgage both sums must be paid upon the Redemption 247 Whether Mortgage Mony to be paid by the Administrator in relief of the Heir and when not 274 275 The Plaintiff decreed to pay off a Bond of 50 l. as well as the Mortgage Mony upon Redemption 361 Creditors on Judgments and Bonds decreed to redeem Mortgages 396 Mortgage Mony to whom payable to the Heir or Executor who shall have the Equity of Redemption 42 140 143 155 Rent charge in Fee Mortgaged is devised then the Mony is paid the Administrator shall have it and not the Heir 162 An Ancient Recognizance not set aside to let in a Mortgage 106 Adventure in the East India Company Mortgaged is Redeemable 108 Purchase Mony Bill for the 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 a good Plea 44 N. NE exeat Regnum 19 And the Causes of it 20 Laymen to find Security as well as Clergy-men upon a Ne exeat Regnum 20 O THE unadvanced Children by the Custom of London to bring in what they had received into Hocpoch with the Orphanage thirds after the Estate is divided into thirds and not with the whole Estate 360 Executor decreed to pay in Orphans Mony into the Hand of W. B. c. 12 What Declaration in writing of a Freeman will let in his Child to have a Customary part 183 What Mony is deposited by the Father to Purchase Lands in persuance of Marriage Articls is to be taken as Real and not as personal Estate and shall not be brought into Hochpoch vid. 50 92 Title under an Occupant demurred to 112 P INformation by English Bill proper to relieve against a Patent granted by Surprize 357 Patent not reversable by Scire facias ib. Of Perpetuities
on Intayling of a Term for years with Remainders over 229 Remainders succesively in a Deed of Trust being limited and confined to fall within 21 years are good and no Perpetuities 282 Q EStates Devised to be sold for increase of Childrens Portions and a Child is Born since the Will that Child shall have a share 211 Portions to be paid to two Daughters at Age or Marriage one dies before her Portion shall not go to the Administrator but the Heir shall have the profits upon the Settlement 289 Devise by Will and an Agreement about a Portion not intended several sums 35 Where Lands to be charged with Portions or not upon the Construction of a Will 126 On Constructions of a Marriage Settlement and a Will only one Portion decreed and not double 165 Payment Whether payment of Mony shall be applied to discharge Interest of the original debt or towards satisfaction received by Judgment on the same Bond 89 Priviledge from a Parish Office for the Kings Officer grantable out of Chancery as well as Exchequer 197 Power to make Leases if well pursued 157 Prohibition out of Chancery for Arresting in the Marshalls Court for matters arising in Berks 301 R. UPon refusal to accept of Rent no relief in Law or Equity for the Arreares 61 Recognizance entred into by the Wife the day before Marriage set aside and a perpetual Injunction 80 Release pleaded against the Redemption of a Mortgage and allowed 131 Reversion after an Estate Tayl subject to Trust for payment of debts 208 Contingent Remainders Devise to Father for life Remainder to his first Son and Remainder to Trustees for 99 years to support the Contingencies good tho' the Limitation is misplaced 171 A Suit cannot be revived for Costs alone where no Duty is decreed 246 A Settlement with power of Revocation by Will Executed in presence of three Witnesses but one of them did not subscribe his Name yet decreed a sufficient Revocation 214 Proofs in an original Cause not to be allowed on a Bill of Review 18 45 Bill of Reviver dismist for that 't is a long time since the Decree was made and the Plaintiff Rested under it without any complaint 48 Bill of Review for that the Plaintiff can now prove a tender and refusal which he could not prove before dismist 66 Reviver by Bill or Scire facias when proper 67 Where no ordinary Process upon the first Decree will serve but there must be a new Bill to pay Execution of the first Decree by second Decree 128 No Reviver for Costs there being no Decree Inrolled 195 No Defence in case of Abatement before the Decree signed can revive 195 S SEpecial Maintenance 411 feme Coverts disposing of her personal Estate according to Marriage Agreement decreed good but not as to the Rents and Profits of her real Estate 416 A prior Deed of Settlement barred by a subsequent Deed and new provision made for Portions 8 Supplicavit of the Peace on Petition and not on Motion nor any indorsment on the back thereof yet good 68 Want of a Surrender Aided 129 Mony decreed to be paid out of a Sequestered Estate and the Commissioners had power to sell the Term 192 A Decree and Sequestration against one who dies shall not be revived against his Heir or real Estate 244 T DEed in Trust to pay debts tho' the Creditors are not parties and no certainty of debts therein appearing yet yet good against an after Purchasor who had notice of the Trust 31 An old Trust continued upon a new Lease or Patent 60 No Tenant right against the Crown ibid. Mortgagee or Trustee renewing a Church Lease the cesty que Trust relieved ib. Where Executor shall have a Trust and where not 78 After a Statute acknowledged and a Mortgage the Conisors Trustees renew Leases in their own Names yet decreed lyable to the Statute 213 Trust assigned Trust determined 115 c. a general Trust and not a fixed Trust 141 2000 l. Allowed a Trustee for charges and expences in managing the Trust 158 Springing Trust 233 Difference between a Trust and a Legacy 288 Term iâ— Gross and Term to attend the Inheritance 233 Trayal at Law directed within a precise time 124 U Will vid. Legacies DEvise of Mony to be paid at a day to come Devisee dies before the day yet it shall be payable to the Administrator 25 Land devised on Condition the Devisee Marry with consent the Limitation over Devisee Marries without consent she shall not be relieved but the Land decreed to the Remainder man 28 Clause in a Will If any Legatee shall oppose or hinder the Execution of the Will then such persons to lose the Legacy a Suit for the Legacy is no forfeiture 105 Construction upon the words of a Will about a double Legacy 111 Construction upon the words of a Will about the profits of Land and Trusts 117 118 Devise of Goods to J.S. for 11 years Remainder over J. S. decreed to deliver the Goods after the 11 years 137 Devise the residue of his Estate amongst his Kindred according to their most need how to be expounded 147 By the general words of a Will I Devise all my Goods Chattels and Household-Stuff in and about my House to J. S. ready Mony in the House shall not pass to the Devisee she having a Legacy 190 A Deed of Trust no Revocation of a Will Estate Devised to be sold for encrease of Childrens Portions and a Child is Born since the Will that Child shall have no share 211 Devise of a Plantation in Barbados 250 Executory Devises 275 Vide Perpetuities A Will and after that a Mortgage the Will is republished it s a good Will and not revoked 299 Lands devised to be sold and none expressed to sell the Executors shall sell 304 Mony devised to one for life with Limitation over good Limitation 410 One of the Plaintiffs a Witness 32 W Wast Injunction against Plowing or Burning of Pasture 94 Y THe Custom of the Province of York as to the distribution of Decedents Estates 258 FINIS
from this Defendant all her Lands and personal Estate which the Defendant had given her power to do and she died and for Non-payment of the said 400 l. per Annum the Defendant entred upon the Lands liable to the payment thereof and the Defendant hopes the said Decree shall not be Reversed The Plaintiff insists That the Title in Law in the Ladies Estate was in Trustees before her Marriage with the Defendant and so agreed to be continued without his intermedling therewith he bringing no Additional Estate to the said Lady and that there was no Fine levied to the Trustees or otherwise of her Estate of Inheritance Revocation of Uses and that the Uses upon the Recoveries were with power of Revocation in the Lady alone and that pursuant to such power by Deed 14 Car. 1. she Revoked the same and setled the same in Trust for such persons and their Heirs as she by her Will should appoint and that the said Tripartite Indenture and Decree did not discharge the Trust nor take notice of the Recoveries and that the said Lady in 1659. did appoint that her Trustees upon the said Recoveries shall convey part of her Land to the Plaintiff Solmes's Father and the Plaintiff Terrell and the rest to her Heir at Law and that in 1650. the said Land came first to be charged which was after the Ladies death and presently after there appeared Infancies which was the reason the said Decree was not sooner impeach'd This Court being assisted with the Judges Bill of Review dismist for that its a long time since the Decree was made and the Plaintiffs rested under it without any Complaint taking into Consideration the length of Time since the Decree was made and how long they were resting under it without any Complaint and that the Heirs have a benefit by the Ladies separate power of disposing who disposed accordingly by her Will. This Court with the Judges declared and are of Opinion that the said Decree grounded on the Tripartite Indenture 14 Car. 1. was and is a good Decree and ought to be performed and dismissed the Bill of Review White cont Ewens al' 22 Car. 2. fo 237. THis is upon an Appeal from a Decree Appeal from a Decree the Case being That Dame Ann Brett Relict of Sir Alex. Brett having a Joynture in the Manors and Lands of Whitstanton and Alexander her Son having on the Marriage with Elizabeth the Daughter of Sir William Kirkham agreed to settle 250 l. per Annum Joynture on the said Elizabeth but being disabled to do it by reason of Dame Anns Joynture he being seised only of 120 l. per Annum in Whitland and the Reversion of Yarkcombe the said Alexander agreed with the said Dame Ann That his Heirs Executors or Administrators should pay yearly after his death to Sir Humfry Lind and George Brett 250 l. per Annum during the said Dame Anns life if the said Elizabeth should so long live and thereupon the said Dame Ann Joyned with the said Alexander in a Grant of a Rent-charge of 250 l. per Annum out of Whitstanton for the Joyture of Elizabeth and Alexander 12 Jac. 1. demised Whitland and Tarkcombe to Lind and Brett the said Trustees for an hundred years to commence immediately after such time as the Heirs Executors or Administrators of Alexander should fail to pay the said 250 l. per Annum to the said Trustees during the life of the said Elizabeth That 15 Jac. 1. the said Alexander died and there being a failure of payment of the 250 l. by the Children Executors c. of the said Alexander to the said Elizabeth or to the Trustees for the use of the said Dame Ann the said Dame Ann paid the same out of Whitstanton and thereby the said Lease of 100 years of Whitlands and Yarkcombe did commence and thereupon she entred and received the Profits of Whitlands and the said Dame Ann paid the 250 l. during the life of the said Elizabeth That the said Alexander leaving three Children viz. Robert Mary and Ann wholly unprovided for and by Agreement the said Dame Ann was to pay 80 l. per Annum for the said Childrens Maintenance from the death of the said Elizabeth their Mother and that the said Dame Ann and her Trustees should assign the said Lease of 100 years to the said Children when at Age. That 17 Jac. 1. the said Lease was assigned to the Children to commence from 1636. that the said Dame Ann paid the said 80 l. per Annum maintenance which with 1750 l. she had paid to the said Elizabeth amounting to more than the Value of the said Lease of Whitlands whereof she received the Profits till about 1636. the said Mary one of the Children being dead and that the Defendant Ewens having married Ann the other Daughter they and the said Robert Brett the Son held the said premisses as Joynt-tenants by virtue of the said Lease but the said Robert Brett receiving more of the Profits than his share the Defendant Ewens and his Wife sued out a Writ of Partition in 1654. Partition a Moiety was delivered to the Defendant Ewens and Judgment given that the same should be held in severalty and the Defendant Ewens 12 Car. 2. for 132 l. Fine and 20 l. per Annum demised part thereof to the Defendant Nurse who assigned to the Defendant Rutland That the Plaintiff White insisting That Robert Brett acknowledged a Judgment to Richard White in 1644. extended the Defendants Moiety and brought an Ejectment and got a Verdict by surprize since which the Defendant brought an Action and obtained a Verdict whereupon the Plaintiff exhibited this Bill and hath stayed the Defendants by an Injunction To have an account of the Profits received and a Lease 12 Jac. 1. being 20 years since is contrary to the Limitations and Rules both at Law and Equity The Plaintiff insists He is now in the place of the said Robert but in a better condition his said Judgment under which he claims being long since Extended in the life time of the said Richard White and Robert Brett and before any Action brought and if the said Lease be satisfied the same ought to be set aside And to take off the length of Time insists That by a Decree made in the Court of Wards in 1640. the Defendants were to account with the said Robert Brett and the Plaintiffs Father Richard White really lent the said Mony for which the Judgment was got and in 1646. on Extent had a Moiety of Whitlands delivered and that notwithstanding the Lease to the three Children the Lady Ann had possession of Whitlands till 1637. The Defendants insist That the Lady Ann paid 1750 l. and 80 l. per Annum during the Minority of the Children which is more than the Value so look'd on her self an absolute Owner and disposed of the said Lease whereof the said Robert had a Moiety Lease to commence after failure of payment
to be defalked out of 1500 l. because of Marriage against Consent That the Plaintiffs said Marriage was without the Defendants privity and against his consent and that therefore the Plaintiff Ann cannot have the said 500 l. But decreed the Defendant to have the same with Interest from the Plaintiffs Marriage Wall contra Buckley 26 Car. 2. fo 178. THat the Plaintiffs Father Guardian takes Bond in his own Name for Arrears of Rent by this the Guardian hath made it his own Debt as his Guardian takes Bond for 100 l. Arrears of Rent due from the Tenants and takes it in his own Name This Court is of Opinion That the Plaintiffs Father hath by that means made it his own debt Stickland contra Garnet al 26 Car. 2. fo 340. THe Bill is for a Legacy of 20 l. Bill for a Legacy given to the Plaintiffs late Husband by the Will of George Coker Deceased to be raised and paid upon the Sale of Customary Lands mentioned in the said Will which said Lands are by the Will Devised by the said Coker to Jennet his Wife for her Life with remainder over to the said Defendants in Trust that after the Death of Jennet the said Trustees should Sell the same and with the Money thereby Raised to pay the Legacies in the Will and the Trustees to be Accountable over for the Surplus to other Persons and the said John Stickland the Legatee Dying before the said Jennet and before the time the said Lands out of which the said Legacy was to be Raised were appointed to be Sold. The Defendants Crave Judgment of the Court Legatee dyes before the time of payment of the Legacy yet payable to his next of Kin. whether the said Legacy of 20 l. was due to the Plaintiff or Determined by the Death of the said John Stickland This Court was of Opinion that the 20 l. did notwithstanding the Death of the said John Stickland continue payable to the Plaintiff Brond contra Gipps 26 Car. 2. fo 763. THis Court declared Lands Decreed to be Sold to supply the Personal Estate that the Plaintiffs Legacies ought to be paid out of the whole Estate of the Testator viz. out of the Personal Estate so far as that will extend and if that will not satisfie the same then the Testators Mannors and Lands undivided and unsold shall in the next place come in Aid of the Personal Estate for Satisfaction thereof and if that be not sufficient then the whole Mannors Lands and Tenements though Sold and Divided shall notwithstanding such Sale and Division come in supply thereof in proportion to be Refunded and paid by the Person or Persons in whose Hands soever the same shall be found Bowyer al' contra Bird 26 Car. 2. fo 769. THe Suit is to have an Account of a Legacy of 500 l. given by George Dale Father of the Plaintiff Ann to George his Son also Deceased to whom the Plaintiff Ann was Administatrix and to have an Account of the Residuary Estate of George the Father after his Debts and Legacies paid the Bill Charging that George the Father made his Will in Writing and thereof his Son Thurston Dale and one Dakin Executors and upon Publishing of his Will Declared Dakin only to be Executor in Trust for his Children and to take no Benefit thereby but the Estate to go to the Children and Dyed leaving the Plaintiff Ann and three Sons viz. the said Thurston George and Robert Dale all Deceased and that Thurston made the said Dakins his Sole Executor and the Plaintiff Ann is the only Surviving Child of the said George Dale the Father and claims the said 500 l. and the Residuary Estate This Court it appearing by the said Will Estate Decreed to the Residuary Legatee and not to the Administrator that the said Thurston who was Named Executor without any Trust was Residuary Legatee of the said George Dale his Father who had given by the said Will considerable Legacies to every one of his Children was fully satisfied the Plaintiffs were not intitled to the said 500 l. nor the Residuary Estate but that the said Thurston as Residuary Legatee was well intituled to the Residue of the said Estate and that the said Trust in Dakins ought to be Construed as is most Consistent with the Will in Writing and Dismist the Plaintiffs Bill Dom. Leech contra Leech 26 Car. 2. fo 369. THis Court declared A Deed tho' Cancelled yet good and the Estate shall not be Divested out of the Trustees tho' the Deed appeared Cancelled yet it was a good Deed and that the Cancelling thereof did not Devest the Estate of the Trustees therein named and that the Trust thereby Created ought to be performed Feake contra Brandsby 26 Car. 2. fo 74. THat William Crowe by Will Bill for a Legacy Devised to every one of his Servants living with him at the time of his Death 10 l. a piece and that the Plaintiff was Servant to the Testator at his Death so the Plaintiffs Suit is for the 10 l. Legacy The Defendant insists that the Plaintiff was not Servant to the said Crowe at his Death or lived with him as a Servant but the Plaintiff at the Testators Death and long before and after was the Servant of Mary Brandsby the Testators Mother This Court was Satisfied Who shall be said to be a Servant living with the Testator at his Decease that the Plaintiff was a Servant to the Testator and intrusted in his House-keeping and imployed in washing his Linnen and Tended him in his Sickness and therefore Decreed the Defendant the Executor to pay the Plaintiff her 10 l. Legacy Winchcombe contra Winchcomb 26 Car. 2. fo 654. THat in Michaelmas Term 2 Car. 1. John Carter obtained a Judgment against John Winchcomb the Defendants Grandfather of 400 l. upon two several Bonds both Dated 17 June 1623. for the payment of a 100 l. each Bond one payable the 1st of May then next and the other the 1st of May 1625. That the said Carter made Humfrey Coles his Executor and Dyed and the said Humfrey Coles Dyed and his Son John Coles took Administration De bonis non of the said John Carter who produced the Bond payable the 1st of May 1625. whole and uncancelled and thereupon insisted to be a Creditor for the said 400 l. on the said Judgment But the Defendant Winchcomb produced one of the said Bonds Cancelled Judgment upon Bonds of long standing ordered to be paid and insisted that the same was satisfied for that Humfrey Coles 12 Car. 1. had an Elegit returned and Lands delivered by the Sheriff which being near 40 years since the same would not have slept so long had not the said Debt been satisfied one Bond being Cancelled And the said Coles insisted that the said Carter was kept out by prior Incumbrances and that he Exhibited a Bill against John Winchcomb the Father to discover the same who by
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
consented and agreed to by the Relict and Executrix and so decreed at the former hearing This Court declared Devise of a Personal Estate in Remainder after the death of J.S. is a void Devise and Vests wholy in J.S. she being Executrix That the Devise of the personal Estate to the Plaintiff in Remainder was a void Devise and the said Estate to the Testator immediately thereupon did Attach and vest in the said Alice his Relict and Executrix and the Defendant as her Executor was and is well intituled thereto and decreed accordingly Bredhust contra Richardson 31 Car. 2 fo 695. THat Samuel Russell by his Will gave to his three Daughters Sarah Christian and Elizabeth 540 l. to be divided amongst them viz. For each of them in particular 180 l. but if any one or two of them 540 l. To be divided amongst three Daughters and if one or two dyes without Issue the Daughters to Inherit each other one Marries the Plaintiff and dyes Sans Issue the Plaintiff is intituled to the 180 l. as Administrator to his Wife should dye without leaving a Child that the Daughters should Inherit one anothers Goods Monies Lands and Chattels which the deceased should leave behind them and that the Plaintiff intermarried with the said Elizabeth and that she died without leaving a Child before payment of the said 180 l. The Plaintiff insists That he as Administrator to the said Elizabeh his Wife is intituled to the said 180 l. and her share of the said Goods The Defendant insists That by the words and true intent of the Testator and the said Will the same doth not belong to the Plaintiff but came or in Equity belongs to the Defendants as Surviving Sisters This Court declared the Plaintiff is well intituled to the said 180 l. and decreed accordingly Turner contra Turner 31 Car. 2. fo 102. THat the Plaintiffs Father lent to Ayloff 700 l. and 200 l. at another time for which Ayloff Mortgaged Lands to the Plaintiffs Father and his Heirs with proviso that on payment of 600 l. to the said Plaintiff Father or Heirs then the premisses to be reconveyed to Ayloff that the Plaintiff is Executor to his Father and Brothers and so claims the Mortgages as vesting in the Executors of his Father and not in his Heirs The Defendant being the Son and Heir of the Plaintiffs eldest Brother deceased and Grandson and Heir to the said Plaintiff's Father insists That the Plaintiff and Defendant and others who claimed several shares and parts of the Plaintiffs Fathers personal Estate agreed to a Division thereof amongst themselves and a Division was made and Releases given of each ones demands in Law or Equity to the said Estate and the Plaintiff in particular released and the said Ayloff's Mortgage with the Mony due thereon with other things was set out and allotted to the Defendant by consent of all the parties and received by the Defendant in part of his share and the Plaintiff accounted to the Defendant for the profits of the said Ayloffs Mortgaged premisses received by him and afterwards in 1664 the Defendant had a Decree for the Mortgage Mony against Ayloffs Executor and received the same to which proceedings the Plaintiff was privy and the Defendant says it is unreasonable that the Plaintiff should now make a demand to the said Mortgage to unsetle matters so setled by his own consent but the Plaintiff insists he looked on the premisses at that time to come to the Defendant as Heir and knew not his own Titile thereto and the shares set out came but to 250 l. apiece and Ayloffs Mortgage was worth 800 l. This Court is of Opinion The Heir is decreed to have a right to a Mortgage in Fee and not the Executor that the Plaintiff ought to be relieved and had an undoubted Right to the said Mortgaged premisses and decreed the Defendant to repay all the Mony received by him thereon to the Plaintiff Bois contra Marsh 31 Car. 2. Land Legatees and Mony Legatees decreed to abate in proportion notwithstanding an Agreement to the contrary fo 441. THis Court declared That all the Legatees both Land Legatees and Mony Legatees ought to abate in propotion notwithstanding the Agreement to the contrary and that the said Agreement be set aside Audley contra Dom ' Audley 31 Car. 2. fo 848. THe Bill is to set aside a Lease made by Sir Henry Audley the Plaintiffs Father Power to make Leases if well pursued to the Defendants as Trustees for the Defendant the Lady Audley for 99 years if Henry Francis and Ann Audley Children of Sir Henry by the Defendant the Lady Audley should so long live paying yearly so much Rent as amounts to two parts in three of the yearly Value of the said Houses according to the best improved Value But the Plaintiff insists The said Lease is not made pursuant to the power reserved to the said Henry by a Deed of Settlement made by one Packington in 4 Car. 1. in Consideration of a Marriage between the said Sir Henry and Ann one of the said Packingtons Daughters and Coheirs by which it was declared That the benefit of such power in the said Sir Henry to make Leases was to be for the younger Children of the said Sir Henry by the said Ann his first Wife and the said Lease was not well gained from Sir Henry The Defendant insisted it was made pursuant to the power which was That Sir Henry should have power to make Leases for a provision of any thing he should have or otherwise as he should direct Which Matter was referred to the Lord Chief Justice Hales who declared the power good and that Sir Henry had pursued that power The Plaintiff insisted That the Rent reserved is altogether uncertain and lies only in Averment and that if the Value averred by the Plaintiff should in the least be disproved the Plaintiff would be Nonsuited in any Action And so insisted That it was proper for this Court to fix and establish that for a standing Rent which can be made out to have been two parts of the best improved Value at the time of making the said Lease and that the Rent so to be ascertained the Defendant might Covenant for constant payment thereof This Court on perusal of the said Lease and power and of the Lord Hales Opinion declared the said Lease to be good and sufficient and that unless proof be made of a greater value than the Sum of 290 l. Two parts in three of the improved value reserved as a Rent by a power the constant payment of such a Sum at the time of making the said Lease decreed to be paid whether the premisses rise or fall which hath been constantly paid by the Defendant the Lady Audley and accepted of by the Plaintiff that the said Sum must be taken as two parts of the full value of the premisses at the time of making the said Lease which or the greater
and paid unto them and secured unto them by the Defendant Charles the only Son and Heir of the said Sir William The Defendants Charles Elizabeth Mary Brook and Abigal Hodges insist that Sir William in his Life time upon his second Marriage with the said Plaintiff Dame Jane the Defendants Charles Elizabeth and Mary Brooke being the Issue of the said Sir William by a former Venter by deed setled a great part of his Estate in Trust for the said Dame Jane as her Joynture wherein provision was made whereby the said Plaintiff Jane his Daughter was to have 3000 l. out of his Estate for her Portion and that Sir William declared he intended her no more and that the Defendants Elizabeth and Mary Sisters of the whole Blood to the Defendant Charles should have their Portions out of his Estate made equal with the portion provided for the Plaintiff Jane the Infant as aforesaid and that the 9000 l. to be raised by the Defendant Charles was for all his Sisters Portions including the said Plaintiff Jane the Infant but over and above the said 3000 l. provided for her by the said Settlement and hope this Court will not think it reasonable that the Estate of the Defendant Charles shall be charged with the payment of 6000 l. for the Plaintiff Janes portion which Sir William never intended to be above 3000 l. and insists that the Plaintiff Jane being Sister by the second Venter ought not to have two 3000 l. and they but one 3000 l. who are Sisters of the whole Blood to the said Charles and insist that the said Will was only in affirmation of the said Settlement and that the said Sir William had no great Fortune with the said Dame Jane The Plaintiff Dame Jane and Jane her Daughter insist that by the said Settlement on Marriage with Dame Jane to Sir William there was a provision for Issue Males and if more then a provision for 3000 l. for Issue Females by which the Plaintiff Jane the Daughter claims 3000 l. And then Sir William by his Will devising 9000 l. to be raised out of his Lands for his Daughters Portions viz. 3000 l. apiece not excluding the said Jane she is as much thereby intituled to a third part of the Estate devised as her Sisters are to 3000 l. apiece and there was a good Reason for such double Portion for Jane the Daughter in respect the said Dame Jane did bring to Sir William 500 l. per Annum Joynture and 1000 l. in Mony and although Dame Jane had before her Marriage a separate Maintenance of 250 l. a year out of the said 500 l. per Annum yet it was paid to and received for the use of the said Sir William and Sir William often declared it should be made up to her Child or Children This Court on reading the Marriage Settlement and Will Upon the Construction of a Marriage Settlement and Will only one Portion decreed of 3000 l. and not 6000 l. by which it appeared that the said Will did operate as well upon those Lands in possession as those in Reversion declared there was no proof of any Intention of Sir William the Father to make a double Portion for Jane his Daughter by a second Venter and therefore the Plaintiff Jane the Daughter ought to have but one 3000 l. but that she ought to have it in the first place whether the Lands in present possession devised and the said Reversion which are liable to the said Will be sufficient or not to raise the whole 9000 l. viz. 3000 l. to the Plaintiff Jane and 6000 l. to the Defendant by the first Venter and decreed accordingly Stewkley contra Henley 31 Car. 2. fo 567. THat Sir John Trott deceased Will. being seised in Fee of a Rent charge of 200 l. per Annum but subject to a Redemption on payment of 3400 l. by his Will in 1670. devised the said Rent to Trustees and their Heirs and all benefit thereof on Trust that they should suffer Katherine his Daughter then the Plaintiffs Wife and since deceased her Heirs and Assigns to receive the same to her and their own proper use That shortly after the Grantor of the said Rent charge redeemed the Rent-charge by payment of the 3400 l. to the Plaintiff Stewkley and his said Wife Dame Katherine whereupon they came to an Agreement by Deed touching the said 3400 l. viz. as to 1400 l. thereof should be paid to the Plaintiff he conveying Lands to Trustees to answer the Interest of the said 1400 l. to the said Dame Katherine his Wife in such manner as the said Rent-charge was payable by her Fathers Will and with further power of Appointment in Dame Katherine to direct the payment of any part of the said 1400 l. by her Deed or Will or other Writing under her Hand and Seal to the Plaintiff or Children of the Plaintiff and the said Dame Katherine and as to the remaining 2000 l. it was agreed it should be put out at Interest which Interest and such part of the Principal as the said Dame Katherine should by Writing under her Hand and Seal was to be paid by the Trustees as he should appoint and for want of such Appointment or as to so much as should not be appointed in case she did not survive the Plaintiff her Husband then to her Heirs and Assigns in such manner as the said Rent-charge of 200 l. per Annum was demised to her as aforesaid which 2000 l. was put out accordingly That about 1679. Dame Katherine died without making any demise or appointment at all she knowing the Defendant Charles Stewkley her Son was well provided for so to have the said 3400 l. out of the Trustees hands is the Plaintiffs Suit The Plaintiff insisting A Rent-charge in Fee subject to Redemption devised the Mortgage-Mony is paid Decreed the Administrator to have it and not the Heir That the said 3400 l. was a Personal Estate or a Chose en Action belonging to the said Dame Katherine and so belongs to the Plaintiff as her Administrator But the Defendant the Trustees and the Heir insist That the said Mony belongs to the Heir the said Dame Katherine making no Appointment thereof This Court declared That the Matter in demand was originally a Mortgage and if it had not been Redeemed in the Ladies life time it would have gone to her Administrator and the Lady having made no Appointment other than the said Deed as to the 1400 l. and having only appointed that the 2000 l. should go as the Rent charge of 200 l. per Annum by Sir John Trotts Will should have gone which being once a Personal Chattel and not descendible the operation of Law could not be controlled but that it ought being a Personal Estate to go according to the course of Law to the Plaintiff he being Administrator the rather for that the Heir is amply provided for otherwise his Lordship declaring that the Lady Stewkley
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
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