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
the Mannor of Warter in the County of York whereby he made himself but Tenant for life the Inheritance vesting in the Plaintiff his Eldest Son and Sir Phillip had Issue by his first Wife the Plaintiff his Eldest Son Robert his Second Son and Mary who Marryed the other Plaintiff the Lord Merrion That Sir Phillip in 1647. by Will devised to his said Son Robert a Rent charge of 40 l. per Annum to be issuing out of the said Mannour and afterwards the said Robert died and the Defendant Dorothy his Relict Administred to the said Roberts Personal Estate so the Plaintiffs Bill is to have Distribution of his Personal Estate The Defendant Dorothy insisted That she as Widow of her said late Husband Robert by the Custom of York is Entituled to a Moiety of the said Personal Estate and by the late Act for setling Intestates Estates the said Defendant is Intituled to the other Moiety and insisted That Sir Phillip having Issue by several Venters which are yet alive or their Representatives they are equally intituled with the Plaintiff Stapleton This Court declared a Distribution of the said Personal Estate according to Law to be made amongst the Plaintiff Stapleton and the Child of the Lord Merrion as also the Brothers and Sisters of the said Robert as well as those of the half-Blood as those of the whole Blood and their respective Lineal Representatives who are to be called into the account And as to the point whether the Lord Merrion and his Child have the Right to his Wives share of the Estate a Case is to be made That the Master to whom the account of the Intestates Personal Estate was referred 36 Car. 2. fo 375. hath allowed to the Defendant Dorothy the Administratrix a Moiety of the said Estate of the said Intestates dying without Issue and hath Distributed the other Moiety amongst the Intestates Kindred Brothers and Sisters Whereas by the Custom of the Province of York she is not only to have a clear Moiety of the Personal Estate of her said Husband so dying without Issue after Debts c. but by the late Statute for setling Intestates Estates she is to have a Moiety of the other Moiety The Plaintiff insists That there was no Colour for the Defendant to have a Moiety of the remaining Moiety the said Statute leaving the Custom as it was without Addition Diminution or Inlargement but the Widow was to have only a Moiety and the other Moiety to be Distributed amongst the next of Kin. This Court for the further satisfaction The Custom of the Province of York Certified by the Arch-Bishop ordered the Lord Arch-Bishop of the Province of York to testifie when a man dies Intestate within that Province without Issue after his Debts c. paid how the Residue is to be Distributed by the Custom of the Province The Bishop certified That in such Cases as aforesaid the Widow of the Intestate by the Custom of the Province had usually allotted to her one Moiety of the clear Personal Estate and the other Moiety hath been Distributed amongst the next of Kin to the Intestate and that had been the constant practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts at York The Plaintiff insisted That the Custom of that Province is excepted out of the Act of Parliament and if it were within the Act it ought to have the more favourable construction on their part because it was made in favour of them and not of the Widow and Administratrix who before the said Act usually went away with the whole Estate unless more particular instances prevented This Court declared The Widow by the Custom of the Province of York shall have the Moiety but not another Moiety by the Act of Settlement of Intestates Estates They could not expound the Act to give the Defendant more than a Moiety that being the proportion allotted to her by the Custom and also by the Act if it had not been a Case within the Custom which Custom is confirmed because it appoints the same kind of Distribution with the Act and it would be a strein to give her more than a Moiety part by the Custom and part by the Act and refers to the Masters Report made in this Cause Coventry contra Hall 34 Car. 2. fo 330. THat Sir Thomas Thynn Bill for mean profits Father both of Sir Henry Frenderick Thynn and Sir James Thynn conveyed on Sir Henry Frenderick and his Heirs Males of his Body expectant after the decease of him the said Sir Thomas the Mannour of Hempsford and other Lands and soon after dyed and the said Sir Henry Frederick possessed the said premisses but Sir James Thynn pretending the said Conveyance was Defective Sir Henry Frederick in Oct. 1650. obtained a decree that the said Sir Henry Frederick and the Heirs of his Body should enjoy the said premisses against the said Sir James Thynn and his Heirs according to the intent of the said Settlement That Sir James Thynn insisting That Sir Thomas was but Tenant for life and not Seized in Fee of the premisses having suffered Recoveries so that the Freehold was in the said Sir James or some other for his use by virtue whereof he received the profits which Sir Henry Frederick ought to have received That Sir Henry not being able to recover the said mean profits at Law by reason of the defect in the said Conveyance which is now supplyed and setled by the said decree and Act of Parliament so that the said Sir Henry hath the right to the said profits and writings So the Bill is to be relieved for the same and to have an account thereof The Defendant insisted That there ought to be no account of the mean profits the demand thereof being very old and is grounded on a decree in a former Cause whereby a defect in a Conveyance under which the Plaintiff claims was supplyed and there is no provision in the said decree for mean profits though the Bill originally was such as this Court might have decreed mean profits and when the Decree was made it was not granted nor any farther relief than only possession and the possession hath been so unconstantly in any one person that it is very difficult especially after so long time against an Executor that is no way privy to the accounts of the Testator The Plaintiff insisted That though the demand on the decree is Antient and a prosecution hath been for the same ever since and the Right being determined the Plaintiff ought to have an account of the mean profits as the Consequences of that Right though the Original Bill might pray an account and the decree be silent as to that point This Court declared That considering this case as if there were no Act of Parliament the Plaintiff hath a right to demand an account upon an equity that ariseth on the Marriage Agreement and Settlement made in pursuance thereof notwithstanding the length of time for that the Plaintiff
of his Real Estate on Trustees and thereby made a provision for the Maintenance of William the younger during his Minority and therefore they opposed the Plaintiff Frances getting Administration of William the Elder The said Plaintiff Frances Whitmore insisted That by the Will of William the Elder there was no joynt devise made to the said William the Son and the Issue Male and Female of the Sisters of William the Father but a several devise to William the Son with Remainder to the Sisters Issue and that the said William the Son having an Interest vested in him by the Will of his Father and being 18 years Old when he died and he having then a power to have proved his Fathers Will the Earls Executorship during his Minority being determined might have spent or given away the said Estate in his life-time he might surely give away the same by his Will which he having done to the Plaintiff Frances she is thereby well Intituled to the same and that the remainder over to Issue Male and Female of the Sisters the Estate being purely personal is absolutely void This Court hearing several Presidents quoted Devisee Infant lived to 18 years and makes his Will and Executors and dies the Executor shall have the Legacy for that an Interest was vested in the Infant declared That by the Will of the Father there was an Interest vested in William the Son and the remainder over to the Issue Male and Female of the Sisters of William the Elder was void and that William the Son living to 18 years and making his Will as aforesaid and the Plaintiff Frances his Executrix she is thereby well intituled to the surplus of the said personal Estate and decreed the same accordingly Whitlock contra Marriot 1 Jac. 2. fo 700. THis Case being upon a Scandalous Answer Defendant ordered to pay the Plaintiff 100 I for putting in a Scandalous Answer His Lordship declared the said Answer to be very Scandalous and Impertinent and that the expressions taken by the Defendant to the Masters Report were not only more scandalous but also Malicious and that it appearing that Ryley the Defendants Solicitor had put Mr. Lynn a Councellors Hand to the Exceptions without his Knowledge This Court Ordered the said Ryley to be taken into Custody of the Messenger and declared the Answer and Exceptions were not pertinent to the Cause but meerly to defame the Plaintiff His Lordship Ordered the Defendant Marriot to pay to the Plaintiff 100 l. for his Reparation and Costs for the abuse and scandal aforesaid and the said Ryley to pay 20 l. and to stand committed to the Prison of the Fleet till payment thereof be made Ash contra Rogle and the Dean and Chapter of St. Pauls 1 Jac. 2. fo 154. THis Case is upon a Demurrer Bill to enforce the Lord of a Mannour to receive a Petition in nature of a Writ of false Judgment to Reverse a common Recovery demurred to and the demurrer allowed the Plaintiffs Bill is to inforce the Defendant the Lord of the Mannour of Barnes in Surrey to receive the Plaintiffs Petition or Bill in the Nature of a Writ of false Judgment to Reverse a Common Recovery suffered of some Copyhold Lands in the Mannour by Susan Râ—gle Widow which the Defendant Râ—gle holds under the said Recovery the Bill setting forth that Katherine Ferrers by the Will of her Husband or by some other good Conveyance was seized in Fee of Free and Copyhold Lands in Barnes formerly her said Husbands in Trust to Convey 200 l. a year thereof upon William Ferrers her Eldest Son and the said Susan his then Wife and Heirs Males of the Body of William Remainder in Tail to Thomas Ferrers the Plaintiffs Father second Son of Katherine and the Heirs of his Body Edward being obliged by Articles upon Susans Marriage with his Son William to settle Lands of that value on Susan for her Joynture That Katherine on that Trust in 1642. surrendred the premisses to the value of 100 l. per Annum to the use of the said William and Susan and the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten remainder to the Right Heirs of William which was a Breach of the Trust in Katherine in limiting an Estate Tail to Susan when it should have been but an Estate for life That William died before the Admittance leaving Issue only his Son William and in 1652. Susan surrendred to one Mitchell against whom the Common Recovery in question was then obtained wherein one Walter was Demandant the said Mitchell Tenant and Susan Vouchee to the use of her self the said Susan for life the Remainder to William Ferrers and the Heirs of his Body the Remainder to the Right Heirs of the Survivor of them the said Susan and William her Son That William the Son died soon after and Susan died in 1684. and the Plaintiffs Father Thomas being dead without Issue Male in case the Common Recovery had not been suffered the premisses would have come to the Plaintiff being the youngest Daughter to her Father as Couzen and Heir both of William Ferrers the Father and William the Son the premisses being Burrough-English and so the Plaintiff was well Intituled to prosecute the Lord of the Mannour in the Nature of a Writ of False Judgment to Reverse the said Recovery wherein there are manifest Errors and Defaults but the said Lord refuses to receive the said Petition and combine with the Defendant Rogle who is Son and Heir of the said Susan by a second Husband who pretends that his Mother Susan surviving her Son William Ferrers the premisses are discended to him by virtue of the use of the said Recovery limited to the Right Heirs of the Survivor of Susan and her Son William so the Plaintiffs Bill is to examine the defects of the said Recovery The Defendants demur for that the Relief sought by the Bill is of a strange and unpresidented Nature being to avoid and reverse a Common Recovery had in the said Mannour 30 years ago and that upon a bare Suggestion generally that the Recovery is erroneous without instancing wherein which may be said in any case The Master of the Rolls declared That as that part of the Bill which seeks to impeach or reverse the said Recovery for any errours or defects therein or compel the said Lord to receive any Petition for reversal thereof or any ways to impeach the same his Honour declared That this Court being the proper Court to supply the defects in Common Assurances and rather to support than to assist the avoiding or defeating of them and there being no presidents of such a Bill as this is he thought not fit to admit of this nor to introduce so dangerous a president whereby a multitude of Settlements and Estates depending on Common Recoveries suffered in Copyhold Courts for valuable Considerations would be avoided and defeated through the negligence or unskilfulness of Clerks and therefore conceived the said Common Recovery ought
Children This Court is of Opinion That the said 60 l. belonged only to the Children of the said Mark Warren which he had by his then Wife at the time when the said Mony was given and decreed the same accordingly Wallop contra Dominam Hewett 24 Car. 2. fo 218. THe Plaintiffs Henry and John Wallop seek Relief for 400 l. Legacies given by a Will and a Codicil and are distinct not one and the same viz. 200 l. apiece Legacy given them by the Will and Codicil of the Lady Crofts The Case is That the Lady Crofts by her Will gave the Plaintiffs 100 l. apiece and afterwards by a Codicil annexed to her Will gave the Plaintiffs 100 l. apiece The Question is Whether the said Legacies so given be one and the same or distinct and several Legacies or what her Intention was in reference to the same and desire the Judgment of the Court therein This Court with the Judges on Reading the said Will and Codicil were of Opinion and satisfied That the said Legacies in the said Will and Codicil mentioned are not one and the same but distinct and several Legacies of 200 l. and decreed the Defendants to pay the said Plaintiffs 400 l. Thorne contra Newman 24 Car. 2. fo 371. 24 Car. 2. fo 8. THat Nicholas Burnell Deed of Revocation Father of the Defendant Margaret Newman being seised of the premisses in 1652. demised the same to Elizabeth Stone for 99 years at a Pepper-Corn with a Proviso to be void on payment of 590 l. and the said Elizabeth died and made Elizabeth Wheat her Executrix and Thomas Baker marrying the Defendant Margaret Newman in November 1657. Elizabeth Wheat and the said Nicholas Burnell Assigning the premisses to Thomas Baker and the said Baker for 500 l. borrowed of the Plaintiff Assigned to one Minterne in Trust for the Plaintiff in 1659 and Baker failing in payment contracted with the Plaintiff for 770 l. more that he would give his Interest in the premisses absolutely without any power of redemption and Baker and Minterne did joyn accordingly in 1660. And the Plaintiff insists That the Defendant claims the premisses by a Deed dated the 19th of August 1659. whereby it is pretended That by Indenture made between the said Old Burnell of the one part and Thomas Lewis and Bartholomew Pickering of the other part the said Burnell in Consideration of the Natural love and affection to the said Margaret and for the setling and confirming of the premisses for the uses therein and for 5 s. Covenanted to stand seized of the premisses to himself for life Remainder to the Defendant Margaret for life then to the Wife of the said Thomas Baker Remainder to the Heirs of her Body with Remainders over and the said Burnell dying in 1659. the premisses then vested in Margaret and that Baker in her Right became seised of the Freehold thereof and that thereby the Remainder of the said term of 99 years was drowned Term drowning in a Freehold and so the Assignment to Minterne and the Assignment by Baker and Minterne to the Plaintiff was void and so the Plaintiff a purchaser for 1300 l. like to be defeated And the Plaintiff further insists That if the said Deed were ever sealed it is with a Proviso of Revocation to be void on payment or tender of 12 d. to Lewis or Pickering or either of them in the Middle-Temple-Hall and that Burnell did tender 12 d. to Lewis with intention to make void the said Deed and declared so to Lewis that she did revoke the said Deed and pulled the Seal off from it and that a Memorandum was Indorsed on the backside of the Deed That there was 22 Octob. 1659. 12 d. tendered to Lewis to revoke the said Deed but the Defendants pretend because the 12 d. was not tendered in the Middle-Temple-Hall therefore the Revocation was not legal and so the said Deed still in force and the Plaintiffs Estate drowned The Defendants admit the Case to be as aforesaid but insist That the said Deed 19 Aug. 1659. was intended for a Settlement on the Defendant Margaret for a provision for her after the death of the said Baker her Husband he having not made any Joynture and that the said Defendants claim the premisses by the said Deed whereby immediately upon the death of Burnell the Freehold of the Premisses vested in Baker in right of the said Margaret his Wife and so the Plaintiffs Estate was drowned and that Baker was not by intention of the said Deed to sell away the premisses for any longer time than his own life without the said Margarets Consent and Joyning with him in a Fine thereof And the Defendants further insist That the 12 d. ought to have been tendred in the Middle-Temple Hall else the Deed must be in force and if any Memorandum or Declaration were made as aforesaid the same was done out of design only to have the said Baker make the said Margaret a Joynture But the Plaintiff insists That he ought to hold the said premisses for the residue of the said term for 99 years against the said Deed. This Court was satisfied That the Plaintiff ought in Equity to enjoy the premisses against the Defendants Voluntary Deed set aside against a purchaser and that the said Deed ought to be set aside as against the Plaintiff but the Defendants are to redeem The Bill being to set aside a pretended voluntary Conveyance set on foot by the Defendant Conveyance with power of Revocation on payment of 12 d. at such a place 12 d. was tendered at another place with express declaration to revoke the Deed. which Deed is with power of Revocation upon the tender of 12 d. and the 12 d. was tendered accordingly with intent to revoke the said Deed and the said Deed is accordingly Cancelled but the Defendants in respect the 12 d. was not tendered at the place appointed set the said Deed up at Common Law and upon a Trial at Law without any defence made by the Plaintiff the Defendants were Nonsuited and the Plaintiff being a purchaser of the premisses first by Mortgage for 500 l. and afterwards by absolute Assignment for 770 l. more The Lord Keeper upon reading the said Cancelled Deed saw no cause to alter the Master of the Rolls his Decree aforesaid but ordered the same to stand Confirmed Comes Sterling contra Levingston 24 Car. 2. fo 113. 432. THat Sir Peter Vanlore the Elder being seised in Fee of the Lands by Deed Covenanted to stand seised thereof to several uses under which all parties to the Suit claim several parts of the premisses and here being a Proviso in the said Deed That if young Sir Peter Vanlore or the Issue whose Issues and Heir the now Plaintiffs are should attempt to impeach the said Settlement that then the uses to him and them limited by the said Deed should be void and that by the death of several persons several parts
Value if so proved is to continue to be paid whether the said premisses rise or fall in Value and decreed accordingly Hethersell contra Hales 31 Car. 2. fo 845. THe Question in the Case is touching 2500 l. 200 l. allowed a Trustee for Charges and Expences in managing a Trust demanded by the Defendant for his Charges and Expences in managing the Trust in question which began in 1668. and continued till this Defendants Answer was put in in which time the Defendant received 20000 l. and paid the same all away to the Creditors and the Plaintiff had not surcharged the Defendant 6 d. This Court took till this day to consider what was fit to be allowed in a matter of this nature and having considered that the Defendant was a Friend to the Family and undertook the Trust at their great Importunity he having a considerable Estate when he undertook the Trust and considering the charges of Surveying the whole Estate setting and letting the same looking after Tenants adjusting their Accounts calling in their Rents returning Monies to Creditors and treating with and stating their Debts and procuring and agreeing with Purchasors and for Law charges and for keeping Servants and Horses and employing others in Journeys to London and elsewhere and his Care there lying from home a long time was of Opinion That the Defendant might well deserve the whole 2500 l. yet doth allow but 2000 l. which the said Defendant is to have Ray Vx ejus contra Stanhope 31 Car. 2. fo 809. THe Bill is That Sir Edward Stanhope Trust the Plaintiff Elizabeths Grandfather by Deed demised Lands to Trustees for ten years after the said Edwards death upon Trust that they should out of the Profits pay to the Plaintiff Elizabeth for her Maintenance 20 l. per annum until her Age of 21. and should further pay to the Plaintiff Elizabeth at her Age of 21. if she so long keep unmarried 1000 Marks for her Portion That the said Sir Edward died leaving Issue Edward Stanhope the Plaintiff Elizabeths Father his Son and Heir she being then 12 years of Age That after Sir Edwards death the Trustees did not intermeddle but left all to the management of the said Plaintiffs Father who received all the Profits and on that Consideration Edward Stanhope the Plaintiffs Father demised to Trustees the said premisses the Reversion of which he was seized in Fee expectant upon the said Term of 10 years and other Lands whereof he was Seized in Fee to hold for 20 years upon Trust to pay the Plaintiff Elizabeth 20 l. per Annum until her Marriage and 500 l. after her Marriage in such manner as in the said Deed for 20 years is expressed and the same was said to be made in consideration of the Preferment the said Sir Edward intended for the Plaintiff Elizabeth his Grandchild that the Plaintiff received the profits of the premisses in the said former Lease during the 10 years and profits of the Premisses in the said latter Lease so long as he lived and maintained the Plaintiff and in 1658. the Plaintiff Elizabeths Father dyed without Issue Male but in his life after the said Lease for 20 years setled the premisses with other Lands of 500 l. per Annum upon the Defendant his Brother without any consideration save natural Affection and the Defendant hath since received the profits that the Plaintiff Elizabeth was unmarryed at her Fathers Death and was his only Child and about nineteen years before the Bill exhibited she Marryed George Stanhope who dyed and about 7 years since she Marryed the Plaintiff Ray so to have Satisfaction of the 20 l. per annum from her Fathers Death to the time of her Marriage with George Stanhope and the 500 l. and Interest from her said Marriage but the Defendant refuseth to pay the same pretending the said several Terms are expired and that the Lands of 60 l. per Annum descended upon the Plaintiff Elizabeth by her Fathers permission in Satisfaction of the said Money but the Plaintiff insists the Lands descended to her from her Father were charged with 500 l. which she hath paid and she had no other provision made for her out of her Fathers Estate and that the Defendant had an Estate of 500 l. per Annum come to him by a voluntary Settlement from the Plaintiffs Father The Defendant insisted that if the Plaintiff Eliz. Father did make such demise for 20 years he had no power so to do being but Tenant for life by a Settlement made by the said Sir Edward and so the Defendant not liable to pay the Moneys and the Defendant claims the Lands and Premisses by vertue of a Fine and Settlement made by the said Edward Stanhope the Plaintiffs Father wherein the Defendant and his Brother George Stanhope joyned and though the said Defendant is the Heir Male of this Family yet he receives little there out of the said Estate the same being charged with 86 l. per An. and the Plaintiff hath not only enjoyed the said 62 l. per ann charged only with 500 l. but also as Administrator to her said Father received out of his Personal Estate 600 l. and if she should have the 500 l. in question also she would have a greater share out of the Estate Arrears of Annuity decreed to be paid and also a portion of 500 l. upon the Defendants owning it in a Letter than the Defendant This Court upon reading a Letter from the Defendant wherein he owns the 500 l. to be due to the Plaintiff Elizabeth on her Marriage and 20 l. per Annum in the mean time or to that effect declared the Defendant ought to pay the Arrears of the said 20 l. per Annum from the death of the Plaintiffs Father to her Marriage with her first Husband and also the 500 l. with the Interest thereof from the time it was raised out of the profits and decreed the same accordingly Dom. Blois al' contra Blois al' 31 Car. 2. fo 723. THe Bill of the Plaintiff Will. Dame Jane Blois and of Jane her Daughter by Sir William Bloys is viz. that the said Sir William Blois Father of the said Jane the Infant being Seized of Lands by his Will gave all his Real and Personal Estate to the Defendant Dame Elizabeth to the Plaintiff Dame Jane and to the Defendant Mary Brook and Abigal Hodges provided that his Son Charles Blois should have 300 l. per Annum thereof and all his Goods should be equally divided amongst his 4 Children as soon as the said Charles should by a Match raise 9000 l. to be paid to his Sisters and made the four Children Executors and dyed whereby the Plaintiff Dame Jane and the rest of the Executors were Intituled to all the Real and Personal Estate to them and their Heirs as joynt Tenants in Trust nevertheless for the said Elizabeth and Mary and the Infant Plaintiff until the Sum of 9000 l. should be raised
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
Tenant to the Precipe and Sir Henry declared the said Recovery to be to the uses in the said Agreement and the Plaintiff Ring by his said Deed Covenants with the said Sir Henry to stand seized of the Parsonage and other Lands in Yeovel in Com' Somerset and also in Com' Dorset being all the Estate he was then seized of in Fee in the said Counties and settles them to the uses in the said Agreement Agreement That the said Sir Henry declared himself well satisfied with what he had done and paid the charges of the Writings That the Plaintiff Ring two years after had Issue Male and Sir Henry after married and died without Issue and without making any Joynture or suffering any other Recovery and doing any other act but selling the Inheritance of one Farm so the premisses came to the Plaintiff Ring who entred but the Defendant Hele the only Son of Richard Hele who was Uncle of the said Sir Henry wrought on Sir Henry to make a Will and to Devise the Estate to the Defendant Hele and his Heirs which Devise the said Sir Henry would not make The Defendant insists That the Settlements on the Plaintiff Ring were Forged and that the said Ring never made any Settlement of his Estate on the said Sir Henry or if he did that nothing passed thereby but only by way of Covenant to stand seised and that if the Plaintiff Ring hath got any such Deed to lead the uses of the said Recovery he got it by Fraud and that if there was such a Deed of May 1673 which was after the Recovery to declare the uses thereof it would not alter that of the 26 of March for that the Plaintiff is a Stranger in Blood to the said Sir Henry and it doth not appear that any Inrolment or due Execution was made of the Plaintiffs Rings Settlement so that the pretended Deeds on both sides are void and not to be supported in a Court of Equity but the Plaintiff Ring may bring an Action at Law where it is proper to be tryed and where the Defendant having a good Title under the Will of Sir Henry will make his defence The Plaintiff insisted That the Defendant objected two matters against the Plaintiff Rings demands viz. Forgery and Fraud and if he will insist on the Fraud he must admit the Deeds to be executed and the Defendant admitting de bene esse the Deeds to be executed and to insist only on the Fraud and Circumvention This Court inspecting the said Deeds declared there was great suspition of the reality of the said Deeds but taking into consideration the inequality of the said Estates in the value though not material in this case yet it was a strong presumption that the said Sir Henry Hele did not knowingly leap into such a bargain and then the inequality of assurances is as bad the said Sir Henry Heles Settlement on Ring being a legal Estate Consideration and mentioned to be in consideration that Ring had made a good Settlement of his Estate which he had not the same being void in Law and not to be made good by Equity and the subsequent inconsistent Acts of offering the Estate to be sold and Rings negotiating the affair were above all the rest bad and apparent Badges of Fraud and Circumvention in Ring Badges of Fraud in obtaining the said Deeds from the said Sir Henry Hele and it is remarkable in the Case that Sir Henry by his Will devised his Estate to the Defendant Hele a little before his death This Court therefore dismissed the matter of Rings Bill but upon Heles Bill decreed the Agreement of April and the two Deeds of May 1673 obtained by the said Ring from Sir Henry be for ever hereafter damned and set aside and Ring to reassure to the Defendant Hele and a perpetual Injunction not only to stay all Suits at Law touching the premisses but also for quieting the said Hele in the Posession Com' Craven al' contra Knight al' 34 Car. 2. fo 732. THe Bill is that the Defendant Geo Bankrupts as to partners Widdows being indebted to the Plaintiffs became bound to them in several Bonds and the said Widdows and the Defendant Berman for several years past were Copartners and Widdows by Articles of Copartnership was intituled to two thirds of the whole Stock and the Defendant Berman to one third That the said Widdows and Berman the 25 of August last became Bankrupts and a Commission of Bankrupsy awarded against them the Commissioners of Bankrupts assigned all the Estate of the said Bankrupts to the Defendant Wright and others and refuse to let the Plaintiffs Creditors of Bankrupts to come in and intend to divide the said Estate amongst the Joynt Creditors of Bankrupts by reason whereof the Plaintiffs debts will be utterly lost The Defendants insist Joynt debts to be paid out of the Joynt Stock it was agreed by Indenture of Copartnership that all such debts as should be owing on the joynt account should be paid out of the Joynt Stocks and at the end of the Partnership each Copartner take and receive to his own use his share of Joynt Stock and the Joynt Stock and Trade should not be charged with the private or particular debts of either of the said Partners but that each should pay their private debts out of their particular Estate not included in the said Joynt Stock that if both the said Partners should be living at the end of the first three years of the six years that the said Berman should come in Joynt-Partner accordingly and during the Joynt Trade the said Copartners became Joyntly indebted to the other Defendants Wright c. in 6000 l. and that Widdows became indebted to the Plaintiff as aforesaid without the consent of Berman and the Moneys due on the said Bonds was not brought into the account of that Joynt Stock and the said Widdows was only a Surety and received none of the Moneys and the Defendants insist that the Joynt Creditors ought to be first paid out of the Estate in Partnership and that the Commissioners have no power to grant the Joynt Estate to pay the Plaintiffs they being separate Creditors of Widdows and if a Surplus of the Joynt Estate after the Joynt Creditors be paid then the Plaintiffs can have but a Joynt Moiety of such Surplus towards their Satisfaction the said Bermans Moiety being not liable to pay the said Widdows separate debts and the debts then claimed were the proper debts of the said Widdows and that after all the Joynt debts are paid there will be an Overplus so that thereby the said Berman will be discharged and have Money paid to him but if the Plaintiffs and other separate Creditors of Widdows be admitted to the Joynt Estate there will not be sufficient to pay the Joynt Creditors so thereby not only Bermans Estate will be applyed to pay Widdows debts Separate Creditors but will be liable to the
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
to the uses of the Articles To which the Defendant pleaded and demurred insisting the same was obtained on good Grounds and Reasons and farther insisted that since the said Dismission and before the Bill of Review the said Lamb had paid the said 1500 l. with other money unto the Defendant Atwood in Right of the said Ann his Wife who was Administratrix to Richard Kettleby and Ann the Daughter and that in consideration thereof the said Defendant Atwood had made a Settlement equivalent thereto for a Joynture for his said Wife and the Issue Male of their two Bodies with a provision for Daughters and that they had a Son then living and prayed the Judgment of this Court therein Which Plea and Demurrer was argued before the Lord Chancellor Jefferies which his Lordship over ruled and Ordered the Defendant to answer and he would hear the Cause ab origine at which hearing the Defendant Atwood and his Wife insisted That the Plaintiffs demand being only a Remote Remainder in Fee as Right Heir of the Husband was not so valuable in Interest as for a Court of Equity to Decree a purchase to be made for the Sale thereof and to take the money from the Wife and Administratrix to make that purchase when she ought to return the same as Assets or howsoever 1500 l. of the money was her own Portion and belongs to her by her Election within six Months and though according to the strict Letter of the Articles her Husband Richard Kettleby could not be said to die leaving no Issue because he had a Daughter living at the time of his death yet the Daughter dying within the six Months allotted for the Wives Election in case he had died leaving no Issue there was great equity to extend the Construction of that Clause of the Articles so far as to give her back her own 1500 l. portion The Plaintiff insisted That such Remainders in Fee have been considered by this Court and purchases decreed to be made and limited to such Right Heirs and that the 2000 l. in this Case cannot be Assets and in like Cases had been so adjudged at Common Law and in this Case the Articles have expresly provided that the money should go as the Land ought to have gone as if a purchase had been made therewith and as for the pretence of the said Defendant Anns electing 1500 l. her power of electing did never arise nor can her power be enlarged by this Court beyond the express words of the Articles nor is there reason for it in this case in regard the Articles provided that she shall have a Dower besides and the said Ann by virtue of her two Administrations hath a great personal Estate besides the 2000 l. in question This Court declared That the 2000 l. Money to be laid out in Land shall be apapplied as the Land should have been had it been purchased must go as the Lands ought to have gone in case a purchase had been made and yet the Wife had no power to elect 1500 l. part thereof because her Husband died leaving Issue and so her power of election never arose nor did any Circumstances appear to his Lordship in this Cause to induce him to inlarge the Construction of the Articles touching such power of electing beyond the express words thereof and decreed the said dismission to be reversed and that the Defendant Atwood and Ann his Wife do lay out the 2000 l. for purchasing Lands in possession in Fee simple to be setled according to the intent of the Articles And as for the Defendants the Trustees Trustees indempnified in regard they relyed upon the said dismission Signed and Inrolled for their indempnity in paying the said 2000 l. to the said Atwood at his Wife they are indempnified thereby Paggett contra Pagget 3 Jac. 2. fo 2. A Deed of Revocation Blanks filled up after the Sealing and Execution of a Deed yet good and a new Settlement made by that Deed tho' after the sealing and execution of the said Deed Blanks were filled up in the said Deed and the said Deed not read again to the party nor resealed and executed yet held a good Deed. Smith contra Fisher 3 Jac. 2. fo 641. THat Susan Beale by her Will in writing after several Legacies thereby given Money deviled to one for life with Limitations over good gave all the rest and residue of her Estate unbequeathed which consisted mostly in ready money to be put forth to Interest by her Executors and one half of the Interest to be paid to the Plaintiff Ann Cole her Sister during her life and the other half of the Interest unto the Plaintiff Ann Smith Daughter of the said Ann Cole and after her Mothers decease to have all the Interest during her life and if the said Ann Smith died without Issue of her Body then the principal of the Residue should be equally divided between the Defendants Mary Cleever and Elizabeth Farmer The Question is whether the devise over to the Defendant Clever and Farmer as aforesaid was a good devise This Court declared that the said Will was a good Will as to the limitations over to the Defendant Clever and Farmer and decreed the Executors to account accordingly Com' Dorsett contra Powle 3 Jac. 2. fo 148. 599. THis Case is Separate Maintenance where by the Deeds and Agreement before Marriage the Countess of Dorset had an absolute power to dispose of all the Personal Estate she had at the time of her Marriage with the Defendant and the proceed thereof and had by her Will and otherwise well disposed of and appointed the same to the Plaintiff and this Court Ordered the Defendant to confirm the same but as to the Rents and Profits of the Real Estate upon consideration of the several Clauses of the Deed relating to the said Estate and different penning of the same from the other Deeds that concerned the aforesaid personal Estate his Lordship declared that the said Countess had no power to dispose of the same By Indenture Tripertite Dated 28th of June 31 Car. 2. made between the Defendant Mr. Powle of the first part Sir Thomas Littleton and Charles Brett Esquire of the second part and the Countess of Dorsett on the third part reciting That the said Countess was seized in Fee of several Manor Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in England and reciting there was a Marriage intended between Mr. Powle and the Countess it was agreed that if the Marriage took effect the Countess should during the Coverture receive and dispose to her own use and at her own Will and Pleasure of all the Right and Title she had or claimed in the said Manour Lands and Premisses or in any other Manours or Lands of the Countess in England and of all the Rents and Profits thereof so as Mr. Powle his Executors Administrators and Assigns were not to intermeddle nor have any Benefit or Advantage thereby in Law or Equity but
should joyn with the Countess from time to time in the disposing thereof as she should appoint and the Defendant Mr. Powle thereby Covenanted that if the Marriage took effect Mr. Powle his Execuecutors or Administrators without the consent of the Countess in writing would not incumber the premisses or receive the Rents and Profits to their own use but from time to time would upon request Authorize such persons after receiving the same for the Countess's separate use as she should think fit so as he might have nothing to do therewith either in Law or Equity and that upon request he would make reasonable Leases of the premisses for such Considerations and Terms and under such Covenants as the Countess should think fit and gave such Acquittances for the Rents as should be requisite and convenient and at the Charges of the Countess and her said Trustees should Commence and Prosecute any Suit necessary for the Recovery of any part of her Estates and in defence of her Right thereto and that the said Countess might dispose of the premisses and receive the profits according to the true intent and meaning of the said Indenture Tripartite without the Interruption of Mr. Powle his Executors or any claiming under him or them And by another Indenture Tripartite 28 June 31 Car. 2. between the Countess of the first part Sir Thomas Littleton and Mr. Brett of the second part and Mr. Powle of the third part reciting that where as there was a Marriage to be had between Mr. Powle and the Countess and that by agreement she was to have and dispose to her own use and at her pleasure all her Jewels Plate Goods and Chattels both Real and Personal and the benefit thereof so as Mr. Powle his Executors or Administrators were not to intermeddle therewith the Countess by Mr. Powles consent did make a Bargain and Sale to the said Littleton and Brett of all her Jewels Plate Houshold-stuff Money Goods and Chattels Real and Personal upon Trust that they should dispose of the same and the proceed thereof to such persons and such uses as the Countess by any writing or by her Will should appoint so as Mr. Powle might not have any power or interest in Law or Equity to Sell Charge or Dispose of the same or any part thereof and for want of such appointment upon Trust to deliver the same or such part thereof as should be undisposed of by the said Countess to her Executors or Administrators and Mr. Powle by the last Deed covenanted not hinder the same and also that they should be free from all debts and ingagements of the said Powle That Mr. Powle and the Countess intermarried and afterwards the said Countess according to the said agreement and power as long as she lived disposed of all the Rents and profits of her real Estate and without Powle's intermedling That aftewards the said Trustees dying Mr. Powle by Deed with the said Countess transferrd the said Trust to other Trustees and also covenanted not to intermeddle but the said premisses to be solely in the power of the said Countess And it was agreed that the receipts of the Countess should be sufficient for the premisses or the preceed thereof notwithstanding tthe Coverture That the Countess by her self and the Trustees received the rents and profits of the premisses and disposed thereof without Mr. Powle That the said Countess by Deed of appointment in 1682 and by her Will in 1684 whereof she made the Plaintiff the Earl of Dorset her Son Executor to whom she after some Bequests and appointments to other persons Bequeathed and appointed all the rest of her personal Estate and also gave to him all her Monies and Rents and all Arrears of Rents in her Steward and Tenants Hands to all which the Plaintiff the Earl the said Countess being dead is intituled The Defendant Powle insists that as to the Rents and Profits of the Real Estate he claims the same and that he was so far from not intermedling therewith that he would not permit the Stewards to receive the Rents without Warrant from himself and that he passed all the Accounts thereaf and rectified them after the Countess had signed them This Court declared Feme Coverts disposing of her personal Estate according to Agreement at Marriage decreed good But not as to the Rents and Profits of her real Estate There was an absolute Power in the said Countess of disposing all her personal Estate that she was possest of at the time of her Marriage and the proceed thereof and that she had pursuant to such Power well disposed of the same and decreed the Defendant Powell to confirm the said Will and Appointment But as touching the rent and profits of the real Estate upon Consideration of several Clauses of the Deed relating to the said Estate and different Penning of the same from the other Deeds that concerned the personal Estate This Court declared the said Countess had no power to dispose of the same and all the Arrears thereof to be accounted for to the said Mr. Powle THE CASE OF The Duke of Albemarle With the Arguments thereon Com' Mountague al' contra Com' Bath al' 4 W. M. fo 90. THe Plaintiffs Revocation Will. after a Trial at Law directed out of this Court wherein the Point in Issue was Whether a Settlement was well made and executed and a Verdict for the Defendant that it was good and valid in Law They come into this Court to seek Relief upon the Equity reserved against the said voluntary Settlement wherein was a power of Revocation by virtue of a Will afterwards made the Question being Whether in Equity the said Will was a Revocation of the Deed tho' not strictly pursued The Bill was That Christopher Bill late Duke of Albemarle being seised of several Mannors Lands and Tenements in several Counties having married the Duke of Newcastle's Daughter and being possest of a considerable personal Estate frequently declared That he would make ample provision for the Dutchess who then had but 2000 l. per Annum Annuity setled on her for a Joynture by George Duke of Albemarle upon her Marriage with Duke Christopher for the support of her Dignity in case she survived him and that if he should have no Issue Male he would leave to her for her life at least 8000 l. per Annum out of his real Estate and in pursuance of such his Resolutions and likewise for the setling of the Remainder of his Lands upon his dying without Issue on Colonel Monk and others made and published his last Will in writing dated 1 July 1687. Whereby He gives to his Wife Coaches Jewels Plate c. and for advancing her living and support if he have no Issue Male and in full of her 2000 l. per Annum Rent-charge and Dower he gives her his Lands in Essex Stafford Lancaster York Lincoln Surrey Devon Hertford Middlesex Berks and Southampton for her life and if she accept
the same that she shall release the 2000 l. per Annum within Three years after his death or else that Devise to be void The Remainder of his Lands in Berks to Sir Walter Clergyes pur vie and after in Tail Male Remainder to his Cousin Henry Monk in Tail Male Remainder to his own Right Heirs To Bevile Greenvile Son to the Earl of Bath his Freehold Lands in Surrey and Southampton for life and then in Tail Male Remainder to his Cousin Tho. Monck pur vie and then in Tail Male Remainder to his Cousin Henry Monck in Tail Male Remainder to his own right Heirs His Lands in Devon to Colonel Thomas Monck for life and then in Tail Male Remainder to his Cousin Henry Monck in Tail Male remainder to his own right Heirs All his Lands in Ireland to his Cousin Henry Monck in Tail Male with Remainder to his own right Heirs Provided That if he have any Issue all devises of any Sums of Mony except for his Funeral his Father's Monument Alms-houses and Legacies to his Executors shall be void and if he leave any Issue the premisses devised to Sir Walter Clergyes Mr. Greenvile Thomas and Henry Monck and their Issue shall go to his Issue viz. to his Sons successively in Tail Male if Daughters in Tail with Remainders to the said persons as before Provided If he leave Issue Male he deviseth to his Wife as an Additional Joynture to her Rent charge Lands in Devon and Essex for her life and makes the Dutchess during her life and in case of her death the Dutchess of Newcastle Guardians of his Children he shall have And in case it happen that Colonel Thomas Monck or any Heirs males of his Body shall live to come and be in possession of the premisses devised to him he desires they will live at Potheridge the Ancient Seat of the Family and desires his Majesty to grant them the Title of Baron Monck of Potheridge that it may remain in the Family in Memory of his Father and himself and his Service his Father had the Honour to do the Crown in the Restauration and makes the Duke of Newcastle Lord Cheney Jarvis Peirpoint Sir Walter Clergyes Sir Thomas Stringer Henry Pollexfen Esq and others Executors That the Duke gave direction to Henry Pollexfen Esq to make this Will and when drawn was fully approved of by the Duke upon mature deliberation Which Will being in Three parts he carefully lock'd up and after leaving Two parts of his Will to two persons and kept the Third he went to Jamaica That the Duke when in Jamaica heard Colonel Thomas Monck was dead in Holland sent to the Earl of Bathe Sir Tho. Siringer and others to send over for Chripher Monck the Colonels eldest Son to Educate him so as to fit him to bear the Character of one to whom he intended the greatest part of his Estate if he died without Issue In September 1688. the Duke sickned in Jamaica and there again published his said Will and declared that if he died the Box and Will should be delivered to the Dutchess and died in October following That the Dutchess at her Return from Jamaica found that the Earl of Bathe set up another Will dated 3. Aug. 1675. whereby the Remainder of the greatest part of the Estate was given to the Earl of Bathe and his Heirs and likewise a Settlement by way of Lease and Release in corroboration of that Will by which he seeks to avoid and frustrate the Will of 1687. That the Duke sent to the Earl of Bathe for the Will of 1675. if any such to have it delivered to him that he might make another Will That the Will of 1687. was Sealed at Sir Robert Claytons the same day after other Writings had been by him sealed to the Lord Chancellor Jeffreys of some Lands sold to him and that the Dutchess nor any of her Relations ever knew or heard of the said Deeds till after the Dukes death nor known to Sir Thomas Stringer who was the Dukes standing Councel and the Plaintiffs farther insist if there were such Deed yet it ought not to avoid or impeach the said last Will though the power of Revoking the same was not literally pursued yet the same in Equity ought to be taken as a Revocation and the rather for that at the making of the Will the Duke remained owner of the Estate and he lookt upon himself so to be for that he had since the said pretended Deeds sold some part of the Estate to Chancellor Jefferies without any Revocation and the Earl of Bath paid no valuable Consideration and that he ought to be protected in the enjoyment of the personal Estate and the Specifick Legacies devised to her in the Will of 1687. tho' the Will of 75. if any such be was intended by the Duke principally to hinder the discent to his next Heir and the Deeds if such there be were for the same purpose and that tho' the Deed recites to confirm the last Will of 75. yet does in several places controul it and alter it whereby and by the extraordinary strange and unprecedented Declarations Provisoes and Covenants therein the Plaintiff believes the Deeds were never executed by the Duke or if so that he was surprised therein and pray Relief in the premisses To this the Defendant makes Answer Answer and sets forth the Will of 1675. whereby the greatest part of the whole Estate was given to the Earl and his Heirs and sets forth the Considerations of his so doing as Antient Kindred and Esteem between Duke George and the Earl of Bath and several Services and good Offices that he had done the Family and likewise sets forth that being well satisfied with such his disposition of his Estate and finding that he had been often importuned to alter the same and fearing lest the repeated Practises and Arts attempted against such his Disposition might some time or other surprise him into a Compliance Consulted with Sir William Jones and other his Councel how to Obviate such practises and to settle his Estate in such manner as that it might not be avoided although for his ease he should at any time seem to yield to the Sollicitations of his near Relations whereupon in Anno 1681. the Duke makes a Settlement wherein he begins That for the assuring of the Honour Manours c. upon a Person of Honour c. and for the Corroborating and Confirming the said Will of 75. and to the end that no pretended last Will should be set up by any Person whatsoever and for the Natural Affection that he beareth to the Earl of Bath c. grants by Lease and Release several Mannors Lands and Tenements c. some in Possession and some in Remainder upon the Earl of Bath in Fee and so to Walter Clergies c. in which Deed there was this Proviso Proviso That if the Duke shall at any time during his life be minded to make void the said Indenture
or any Estate therein contained or to dispose of the said Honours Manours and Lands in any other sort or to any other Person or Persons and his or their Heirs or for any other purposes and the same his Mind Intent and purpose should signifie and declare in Writing under his Hand and Seal in the presence of six Credible Witnesses three whereof to be Peers of this Realm and should pay to his Trustees or any of them the Sum of Six pence with intent or purpose to frustrate or make void the said Indentures That then and not otherwise and immediately after such Signification Declaration and payment or tender of payment of 6 d. as aforesaid the said Use and Uses Estate and Estates Trusts Confidence Intents and Purposes and all and so much of the premisses whereof the Duke should make such Signification or Determination should cease Determin and be utterly void to all Intents Construction and Purposes whatsoever and that then and from thenceforth it should and might be lawful for Duke by such Writing or any other Deed or Writing Subscribed Sealed and Testified as aforesaid to declare new or other Use or Uses Trust or Trusts of all or so much of the premisses whereof the Duke should make any such Signification or Declaration or otherwise to dispose of the premisses or any part thereof at his Free Will and Pleasure any thing in the Deed to the contrary notwithstanding And for the further prevention of the mischief and Inconveniences that might attend any future or suddain Surreptitious Will Covenant which might at any time defeat his Recited Will which he declares to have made upon Mature Deliberation Covenants for himself his Heirs Executors and Administrators with the Duke of New-castle and his Trustees that he would not Revoke Annul or Discharge the said Will or any the Legacies thereby devised unless by some instrument Sealed and Executed in the presence of many and such Witnesses as are in the said Proviso specified declared and described for Credible Witnesses within the said Proviso according to the Intention Literal Sense and true meaning of the Duke expressed in the said Proviso He denies the said Deed was obtained by Surprise but that the Duke executed the same in the presence of many Credible Witnesses and that the Duke left the Deed and Will in his keeping And as to so much of the Bill as requires the Defendant to give an account of what part of the said Dukes Personal Estate came to the Defendants Hands he is Advised by the Rules of this Honourable Court that he is not Compellable to Answer thereunto for that it appears by the Plaintiffs Bill that at the time of the Exhibiting thereof the Plaintiffs were not intituled to make such demand or to have such account it thereby appearing of their own shewing that they have not proved the said Will of 87. but that the same was and still is under Controversie undetermined in the Prerogative Court whereof or as to that part of the Bill he demurs As to the Objection That it was a Concealed Will and Deed the Defendants insist that it was done silently but the Duke would have it kept Secret that he might be free from Trouble and Importunity And they insist That as to the last Will of 85. That the Duke Advised with Councel to know whether a Will made after the Settlement would avoid or impeach the Settlement was answered that it would not and that Proviso must be strictly pursued whereupon he was well satisfied and that the said Deed ought to be supported and not set aside in Equity being made upon such Meâ—â—torious Consideration of Blood Merit c. The Plaintiffs insist That the said Deed if any such being a Voluntary Settlement only that the Will of 87. is a good Revocation thereof in a Court of Equity So that the great Question was if the said Deed it being found to be valid at a Trial at Law is Revoked by the said last Will according to Equitable Intention or Construction This Cause having been Debated and Argued several times by Learned Councel and afterwards by three Judges viz. my Lord Chief Justice Holt the Lord Chief Justice Treby and Mr. Baron Powell it was agreed by them that the Deed was a good Deed well executed and not Revoked by the Will of 1687. The Lord Chief Justice Treby's Argument in short was thus In 1675. the Duke made his Will and declares in respect that the Earl of Bathe was his Kinsman and had done many Kindnesses to him and his Family the Earl should have the greatest part of his Estate and gives several Legacies to one Monck and then he makes a Deed of Settlement in 1681. tho' the Limitations by the one and the other differ but it is not made to revoke but to confirm the Will Both the Will of 1675. and Deed of 1681. do agree in giving the greatest part of the Estate to the Earl of Bathe but the Proviso in the Deed makes the dispute and then there is a Will of 1687. wherein a larger Estate is given to the Dutchess and Colonel Monck c. and desires the Honour of Potheridge may be established on the Moncks The Plaintiffs Bill is to establish the Will of 1687. and set aside the Deed of 1681. and Will of 1675. And the Deed on the Hearing of the Cause was directed to be tried and a Verdict for the Defendant and the Plaintiff hath acquiesced under it and so this Deed must be taken as a good Deed and Conveyance without any suspicion for the Right was tried and the whole Contents tried and if it were good at Law whether there be cause to set it aside in Equity is the Question He was of Opinion That the Deed was a good Deed and ought not to be impeached in this Court The Plaintiffs Arguments against the Deed are 1. Surprize 2. Concealment 3. That the Will of 1687. is a Revocation in Equity 4. That there is a Trust As to the Surprize He observed they did not make use of the word Fraud in gaining the Deed but that it was something put upon the Duke for want of deliberation He said he was not satisfied that there was any Surprize on the Duke for he was not languishing at that time under any Sickness but it was done and executed in good Company and after dinner with great Consideration both before and at that time They pretend a want of Circumstances in the execution whereas Sir William Jones was advised with before the Deed sealed and present at the time of the sealing Several other Circumstances were insisted on by the Plaintiffs but none are sufficient to set aside the Deed. The Deed of 1681. and the Will of 1675. are not inconsistent tho' they differ in the limitation of the Estate But by both the greatest part of the Estate is given to the Earl of Bathe Tho' they could not find Instructions for drawing the Deed tho' the Deed was
Roberts conveyed the Mannor and Lands in question to the Defendant Tracy for payment thereof Payment of Debts and of his other debts but before that Conveyance to Tracy the Defendant Nicholas standing ingaged as Surety for the said Roberts for several of the debts the said Roberts made the said Nicholas a Lease of the premisses for Sixty years at a Pepper-Corn Rent and such Lease being made and no care taken for satisfying the debts the Plaintiffs Sue the said Roberts for their debts so to avoid such Prosecution made the aforesaid Conveyance to Tracy in Fee upon Special Trust to pay all his debts but Tracy combining with the Defendant Astrey who had procured the said Nicholas to assign his said Lease to him Notice of Trust after Notice of the Trust contrived a conveyance of the premisses from Tracy to him the said Astrey by way of Bargain and Sale Inrolled so that Astrey pretends himself a Purchasor of the premisses from the said Thomas Roberts and not under the said Deed of Trust or Lease and Assignment and pretends the Trust is destroyed the said Conveyance being not Inrolled whereas the said Deed was well executed and the Trust accepted by which the said Deed cannot in Equity be made void until payment of the said debts The Defendant Astrey insists Deed in Trust to pay debts tho' the Creditors are not Parties and no Certainty of Debts therein appearing yet good against an after-Purchasor who had Notice of this Trust That the Deed to Tracy for the payment of debts was a void Deed as against a Purchasor there being no Creditor party or privy thereto nor any Schedule of Debts thereunto annexed and that the said Conveyance was voluntary and made only between Roberts and his Wife and Tracy and the Creditors not parties thereto and that by the said Conveyance Roberts was to have all such Mony out of the premisses from time to time as he thought fit for the livelyhood and subsistence of himself his Wife and Family and that the said Conveyance to Tracy being voluntary Voluntary Conveyance and in its nature but in Trust for Roberts and Revokable by him after the Conveyance to Astrey and Roberts having exhibited a Bill against Tracy to set aside the said Conveyance Tracy surrendred the same to Roberts who Revoked it and both Cancell'd it and afterwards Roberts and his Wife conveyed the premisses to Astrey and levied a Fine thereon But the Plaintiff insists That after the Conveyance to Tracy was made he declared he would pay the Plaintiffs debts which is proved by the Plaintiff Sir John Knight The Defendant insists One of the Plaintiffs a Witness Deposition That Sir John Knight is interessed and intituled to some of the debts in question and continued a Plaintiff throughout the Cause and is not struck out of the Bill and is but a single Witness and his Evidence denied by the Defendants Answer and therefore his deposition ought not to be read This Court declared They would see Presidents where a Conveyance made voluntarily for payment of debts and no Creditors named or appearing in any fix'd certainty of the persons and with a Proviso for the Grantor to have Maintenance out of the premisses conveyed for himself and Family without limitation of how much whether such Conveyance be Revokable by the Grantor and Grantee This Court with the assistance of the Judges were clear of Opinion That the Deed from Thomas Roberts to Tracy and the Trust thereby created were made and treated with an honest Intention to pay the debts of the said Thomas Roberts and that the same was not fraudulent Fraudulent Deed or not though no certainty of the debts appear therein but the same being made on a Trust which was a good foundation and a just and honest Consideration and none of the Creditors complaining of any fraud the same ought to be taken as a good Deed and the Defendant Astrey coming in under this Deed and having Notice of this Trust and paying the debts under it ought to receive no countenance in this Court but the Estate ought to be charged with the same in whose hands soever the same shall come and decreed the Deed of Purchase from the said Roberts to Astrey be set aside and Astrey to account for the Profits c. and the Plaintiffs and all the Creditors to be paid their debts out of the said Estate Eyre contra Good al' 21 Car. 2. fo 211. THe Bill is to be relieved against a Bond of a 1000 l. Award penalty for the performance of an Award whereby possession and profits of Lands are awarded to the Defendant The Defendant insists That there was no surprize in the said Award but the said Award was by the direction of the Plaintiffs Friends and says it ought not to be set aside which if it was it would involve many Suits and insisted That the said Award is in the nature of an Agreement and ought to be performed This Court taking Notice Cross Bills about the setting aside or confirming an Award dismist and sent to Law that the Award in question was not made by the Order of this Court but that it proceeded from the voluntary Submission of the parties two Judges being chosen by themselves who declared their Opinion That they saw no cause to decree the Award to be set aside nor on the other side to confirm it or to relieve the Plaintiff but ordered both Bills to be dismist the Plaintiff electing to go to Law This was heard by Justice Tirrel This Cause came to be Re-heard before the Lord Keeper being assisted with Judge Wild who confirmed the Order above Hale contra Acton 21 Car. 2. fo 409. THat Edward Eltonhead by his Will gave the Defendant Mrs. Gilbourne 1000 l. to be first paid after his debts besides a Share out of the dividend of the Estate when as after the making the said Will the said Edward Eltonhead and Henry Gilbourne Father-in-Law to the Defendant Mary Gilbourne before her Marriage came to an Agreement for what the said Mary should have out of the said Estate and that there should be but 1100 l. and the same was to be in full of what was intended her thereout and that the said Edward Eltonhead often so declared and in his life-time paid 500 l. and after his death his Executor paid 100 l. more in pursuance of the said Agreement Devise by Will and an Agreement about a Portion not intended several Sums so as the chief Point then controverted being whether the said Defendant Mrs. Gilbourne ought to have the 1100 l. Portion and 1000 l. Legacy mentioned in her Fathers Will or that he intended to give her any more out of his Estate than the said 1100 l. The Master of the Rolls declared That the 1100 l. ought to be in full of what the Defendant Gilbourne was and ought to have out of the said Estate and decreed accordingly This Cause came
to the Administrator This Court declared And the benefit of the Trust belongs to the Executor or Administrator That both in Law and Equity the benefit of the Trust in such case doth belong to the Executor or Administrator but the Plaintiff Hunt having married the said Plaintiff Mary and claiming in right of her who is Administratrx to her former Husband Edward Palmer the Court thought it hard that by virtue of the said Administration she should carry away the Estate to her second Husband and thereby strip the Infant thereof from whose Father the Estate first moved and it not appearing that the Ecclesiastical Court when they granted the Administration took any Consideration for a distribution to be made for a provision for her this Court would consider of the Case and also of the Limitation and Consideration of the said Deed and deliver their Opinion This Court being assisted with the Judges it appearing that the Interest and Estate of the Terms and the Trust and Benefit thereof is by the death of the said Edward Palmer and his Mother come to the Plaintiff Mary for her life and there being but 30 years of the said Term to come and in regard the Ecclesiastical Court cannot make a distribution of the remainder of the Terms not knowing but that the said Mary may live till the Expiration thereof This Court directed the Defendant Jones to assign and transfer the premisses and all his Interest therein The Trustee decreed to assign to the Admistratrix c. in the said Terms to the Plaintiff or such as they should appoint Darrell contra Whitchot 20 Car. 2. fo 516. THe Plaintiff had a Trust in a Lease of a Coal Farm by Patent from the late King Trust which Lease was afterwards renewed by the King and other Trustees named therein and the Defendant being one of the Trustees insists he was a joynt Patentee for the valuable Consideration of 500 l. But the Plaintiff insists The Defendant comes in as the Plaintiffs Trustee and not to be subject to the same Trust in the New Lease as he was under the Old Lease But the Defendant insists The New Patent was to the New Trustees for Service done by them to this King and this Defendants 500 l. and this Defendant was not Trustee for the Plaintiff but was in for his own use which Patent this Defendant had pleaded and was allowed Yet the Plaintiff insisted An Old Trust continned upon a new Lease or Patent No Tenant Right against the King There was a continued Trust and the Defendant and the King declared he had a respect for the Old Tenants and the Defendant coming in under the Tenants Interests ought to be in Trust for the Plaintiffs and that tho' there be no Tenant Right against the King yet the King did consider the Tenants and that this Case is but the same with that where a Mortgage or Trustee renews a Church Lease Mortgagee or Trustee renewing a Church-Lease the Cestuy que Trust relieved Bill dismist in which Cases this Court had given Relief This Court with the Judges declared their Opinion That there was no ground at all to Relieve the Plaintiff and so dismissed his Bill Episcopus Sarum contra Nosworthy 23 Car. 2. fo 720. THis Case is touching a Rent of 67 l. per Annum reserved on a Lease of Lands made by John late Bishop of Exon to the Defendant Arrears of Rent and the Plaintiff by his Bill says the Defendant never paid the said Rent to the Plaintiff nor any part thereof during all the time he was Bishop of Exon which was for 6 years whereby a great Arrear is incurr'd and due to the Plaintiff from the Defendant for which the Plaintiff seeks Relief The Defendant insists That he directly tendered the said Rent to the Bishop while he was Bishop of Exon but he refused the same having an intention to impeach the said Defendants Estate and now the Plaintiff is Translated to another See and so he ought not in Law or Equity to demand the said Arrears but ought to be debarred from receiving the same by his refusal as aforesaid His Lordship was clear of Opinion that by Law the Plaintiff could not recover the said Arrears but how far the Plaintiff was relievable in Equity was the question and his Lordship ordered Presidents to be produced where there hath been a Just duty but no Legal remedy and ordered a Case to be stated It appearing that the Plaintiff Upon refusal to accept of Rent no Relief in Law or Equity for the Arrears while he was Bishop of Exon would not accept the said Rent his Lordship with Judges assisting him were clear of Opinion That there was no ground in Equity to give the Plaintiff any Relief and dismist the Bill Barthrop contra West 23 Car. 2. fo 744. THe Plaintiffs Suit is to have the benefit and equity of Redemption of Leases mortgaged Assets and other Trust Estates made liable for the payment of his debt being on Judgment for 2000 l. and to have a voluntary Deed of Trust set aside as against the Plaintiff This Court decreed the Plaintiff to have the Equity of Redemption to be liable Equity of Redemption Assets and as Assets to satisfie his said debt of 2000 l. and set aside the said voluntary deed of Trust and all Trust Estate and Surplus thereof after preceding debts paid to be Assets in Equity for the payment of the Plaintiff Hooker contra Arthur 23 Car. 2. fo 523. THe Defendant having recovered damages for breach of a Covenant in a Lease at Law but the Plaintiff insists That there is not so much damages due as the Defendant hath sworn in his Answer therefore the Plaintiff hopes this Court will reimburse him what is overpaid to the Defendant This Court declared they would not try nor ascertain the damages in this Cour The Court of Chancery will not try or ascertain damages recovered at Law but ordered the parties to Law on the Covenant Domina Kemp contra Kemp 23 Car. 2. This is on a Case stated viz. THat upon Articles of Agreement between Sir Robert Kemp and Thomas Steward Devise the Plaintiffs Father upon the Marriage of Sir Robert with the Plaintiff it was agreed 500 l. Marriage portion should be paid unto Sir Robert or his Executors and in consideration thereof the said Sir Robert should settle a Joynture of 200 l. per Annum on the Plaintiff his wife and if the said Sir Robert should dye before such Joynture settled then he was to have Lands chargeable with the Plaintiff Dower which should fully recompence the 200 l. and that Sir Robert by his last Will devised to the Plaintiff a Rent-charge of 200 l. for her life to be issued out of the Mannor of Spenishall and Lands thereto belonging and of certain Farms called Lininlts and Mortimore and Ravels and the Frywoods in full satisfaction of the said Articles and all
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
of the Estate to the Testator Whereto the Plaintiff insisted That the Custom of a Sum certain to be mentioned appeared only by a By-Law called Judd's Law in 5 Ed. 6. the which is no estabiished Law in the City to bind the Right of any and there is a great difference in the By Laws in the City which ought to respect their Government and not bind the Right of any person which is governed by the general Custom of the City and which is paramount to any of their By-laws and by the Custom the Right of a Freemans Child is as much preserved to him as any mans Right by the Common Law of the Kingdom besides the naming of the Sum is no more than in order to the setling the Accounts of the said Estate which may be done before a Master in this Court This Coutt upon Reading several Presidents on both sides declared That the said Certificate was conclusive and that the Plaintiff must be let in for a Customary part of her Fathers Personal Estate and decreed the same accordingly The Defendant was ordered to Account for all the Personal Estate of Bennony Honywood Fo. 598. and the Plaintiff thereout to have her Customary part her Marriage Portion being brought into Hotch potch with the rest of the Personal Estate and the Plaintiff to discover the said Portion on Oath and the Defendant to do the like as to what provision he had The Defendant insists What provision he had was Mony deposited by his said Father in the hands of Mr. Colvile and others to purchase Lands or Houses in or near London in pursuance of Articles between the Defendants said Father and the Defendants Wives Father which were made before the Marriage of the Defendants which Lands and Houses so to be purchased is by the said Articles covenanted to be setled on the Defendant and his Wife for life and for her Joynture Remainder in Tail and was in consideration of the Defendants wives Portion and Houses were purchased therewith in Bennony's life and the Defendant is his Son and Heir And the Defendant insists What Mony is deposited by the Father to purchase Lands in pursuance of Marriage Articles is to be taken as Real and not as a Personal Estate and shall not be brought into Hotch-potch That what was so deposited as aforesaid is to be taken as if the Defendants Father himself had purchased Lands and setled the same to the uses aforefaid and ought not to be accounted a personal Estate of the Defendants Father but as Land This Court declared what was deposited by the Defendants Father to purchase Lands in pursuance of the said Articles is to be taken as Lands and not as personal Estate of the Defendants said Father and also declared what was deposited as aforesaid shall not be brought into Hotch-potch but the Defendant is to discover what he had from his Father upon his said Marriage Prigg contra Clay 32 Car. 2. fo 198. THat John Clay by his Will devised 100 l. Will. to the Plaintiff Philip Prigg Jun. and Deborah Prigg his Sister in manner viz. 50 l. to the said Philip at his Age of 21 years on day of Marriage which should first happen by the Defendants his Executors and in the mean time the whole 100 l. to be secured and improved by his Executors for their use and in case either the said Philip or Deborah should die before payment of their Legacies the Survivor to enjoy the whole 100 l. and if both die before payment of their said Legacies then the Testator decreed the whole 100 l. to his Sister the Plaintiff Elinor their Mother besides 100 l. to her to be paid within 6 Months after his death That the said Deborah Prigg died unmarried and before 21 and before she had received the 50 l. Legacy so that the whole 100 l. became due to the Plaintiff Philip Junior The Defendants insists That Deborah died before the Testator and her Legacy of 50 l. became void This Court was sully satisfied Legacies of 50 l. apiece given to two and if either die before 21 the Survivor to have all One dies before the Testator yet the Survivor decreed to have all though Deborah died before the Testator yet the said Devise of 50 l. to her did not become void and being devised over to her Brother Philip the surviving Legatee it belonged to him according to the devise in the Will the rather for that it being a contingent Remainder and might vest after the death of the Testator so long as there was a Survivor it did not belong to the Executors and for that the Testator who lived for some time afterwards did not alter the devise thereof by his Will nor otherwise dispose thereof in Writing and decreed the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff the two 50 Pounds This Order was confirmed by the Lord Keeper Sanders contra Earle 32 Car. 2. fo 102. THat the Plaintiffs late Husband Daniel Earle Will. or some in Trust for him was at his death seised in Fee and also intituled to the Trust of a long Term of the Mannor upon a Sore and Lands in Com' Nottingham which said long Term was in being and subject to be disposed as she should appoint so that he had full power to settle devise or charge the same by his Will and the said Daniel in consideration of a Marriage with the Plaintiff and 2000 l. Portion he in 1676. by Will devised to the Plaintiff besides a Joynture of 1200 l. and if she were with Child of a Son he gave all his Lands and Tenements to such Son in Tail but for default of such he gave them to the Defendants his Brother and their Heirs and if he had a Daughter he devised to such Daughter 500 l. to be paid when she attained her Age of Sixteen and the same to be secured out of his Lands aforesaid and made his said Brothers Executors That the Plaintiff had no Son but a Daughter who lived some time and is since dead and the Plaintiff is her Administratrix whereby she is intituled to her 500 l. presently The Defendant insists That the Plaintiffs said Husband devised to the Plaintiff 1200 l. and devised to her all her Plate Jewels and Goods and Stock in and about the House at Normanton and made the Plaintiff Executrix till the last day of August after the Will and if she who was then with Child had a Son by that time then she to continue Executrix otherwise the Defendants to be joynt Executors and made such devise to the Daughter and the rest of his personal Estate he devised to his Executrix or Executors That the Plaintiff Margaret having but a Daughter the Defendants proved the Will and are intituled to the Legacies therein to them devised and the refidue of the personal Estate and insists That if the Plaintiff as Administratrix to her Daughter be intituled to the 500 l. yet she is not to receive it till
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
the same could never by any subsequent Act come into the Administration of the Estate of Sir Martin What Act amounts to an Assent of a Legacy and that every Act of the Defendant Robinson was a plain Assent to the Legacy to the Plaintiffs and it is plain the premisses were devisable and so the Plaintiffs Title plain and undoubted and the Plaintiffs ought to have a Decree against the Defendant to Account to them for the said Estate and ought to have the benefit of the said Lease The Defendant further insisted That by such imprudent Act as aforesaid he ought not to be Devested of the Estate but it ought to go to pay Sir Martins debts This Court declared That by the said Clause in the Lease to Worsam the Defendant had Assented to the Plaintiffs Legacies given them by the Will of their Father and that the Devise by the Will was a good Devise Devise of a Plantation in Barbados and that the premisses did well pass thereby and that the said Act of the Defendant Robinson being voluntary had put the Estate out of the power of the Creditors of Sir Martin or out of the power of any Administrator de bonis non of him Decree the Plaintiffs to have the benefit and the Defendants to assign and decreed the Plaintiffs to have the benefit of the premisses and of the Lease to Worsam and the Defendants to Assign their Interests to the Plaintiffs accordingly But the said Defendant desiring a re-hearing of the Cause which was on the 20th of Nov. 1682. when the Defendant insisted That the said Lease could not be an Assent for that the Defendant Robinson then claimed the premisses not as Executor or otherwise than only as Trustee for the Devisees whose Inheritance he then took the same to be and not as personal Estate upon which and other grounds the Defendant insists the said Rent and Reversion of the premisses expectant on the Determination of the Lease was and ought to be of the Testators personal Estate and to go in the ordinary course of Administration and to an Administrator de bonis non and be lyable to debts His Lordship notwithstanding what was now urged by the Defendant declared Decree by Finch he saw no cause to alter the former Decree but confirmed the same This Decree reversed by the Lord Keeper North The Decree reversed by North. and in 1683 fo 168. he heard this Cause upon the whole merits and ordered an Account And in 1686 Finch his Decree confined by Jefferys The Lord Chancellor Jefferys reheard this Cause upon the Merits and confirmed my Lord Chancellor Finch's Decree and discharged my Lord North's Decree Benson contra Bellasis 34 Car. 2. fo 848. THis Cause having received a hearing before the Lord Chancellor Nottingham 11 July 33 Car. 2. who made a Decree for excluding the Defendant Dame Dorothy Administratrix of Robert Benson the Plaintiffs Father from having any part of his personal Estate and the said Cause being heard 10 July 35 Car. 2. before the Lord Keeper North who decreed the said Defendant Dame Dorothy to retain to her own use one third part of the said personal Estate of the said Robert Benson and the said Cause being again reheard this day by the Lord Chancellor Jefferys The Case being that the said Robert Benson on his Marriage with the Defendant Dame Dorothy for the setling of a Joynture on the said Dorothy in full of all Joyntures Dowers and Thirds which she might claim out of his real and personal Estate conveyed Lands to the use of himself for life and after to the said Dorothy for life in full of all Joynturs c. as is aforesaid with this Proviso Settlement on Marriage That if the said Dorothy should after the death of the said Robert Benson have or claim to have or should recover any other part of the Lands or Tenements or any part of the personal Estate of the said Robert by the Custom of the Province of York or by any other means whatever other than what the said Robert Benson should give Bequeath or Settle upon or to her That then the Feoffees therein named should be seised of all the premisses setled in use upon the said Dorothy to the use of Sir Henry Thompson and Mr. Grayham their Executors Administrators and Assigns for 60 years to commence from the death of the said Robert if the said Dorothy should so long live Upon Special Trust that the said Thomson and Grayham should receive the profits of the premisses limited in the Joynture and they should dispose thereof to such persons and their uses as should be damnified by the said Dorothys perception of the profits of any other Lands of the said Robert or the taking or recovery of any part of the personal Estate other than what should be given or bequeathed until the respective values of the Profits or values of such Personal Estate should be fully satisfied and the residue of the said Profits to remain to the said Dorothy That the said Robert dying intestate and the said Dorothy Administring at York and in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury as Guardian to the Plaintiff Robert possessed the Real and Personal Estate prerends a Right to some part of the Personal Estate by the said Administration notwithstanding the said Marriage agreement The Lord Chancellor Nottingham declared the said Dorothy was bound by the said Marriage Agreement Marriage Agreement provided if the Wise claim any of the personal Estate by the Custom of the Province of York then the Estate to other use Decreed she is bound by the said Settlement and ought not to claim any part of the personal Estate by Finch and the Administration ought to have been granted to her and that however the same ought not any ways to avail her for that it would be contrary to the said Settlement and Agreement and that the said Dorothy ought not to claim any part of the Real Estate other than what was Setled on her by the said deed or any of the Personal Estate and decreed accordingly But the Defendant Dorothy insisted Reversed by North. That the Lord Keeper North had adjudged one third of the Personal Estate to belong to the Defendant by virtue of the said Administration and was an accrewing Right not barred by the Marriage Agreement The Lord Chancellor Jefferies Confirmed by Jeffreys on reading the said Marriage Settlement and the said two former Orders declared That the said Order for the Excluding of the said Defendant Dorothy from having any part of the Personal Estate was a just Order and ought to stand and be pursued and that the said Order of the Lord Keeper Norths before mentioned ought to be set aside and Decreed accordingly Stapleton contra Dom. Sherwood 34 Car. 2. fo 732. THat Sir Phillip Stapleton the Plain tiffs Father Bill for Distribution of the personal Estate on his Marriage with his first Wife Setled
Dame Ann Daughter of Sir Robert Cann Articles of Agreement were executed and in pursuance of the Articles a Settlement of part of the premisses was made upon the Defendant Dame Ann for her Joynture and in the said Settlement there was a Covenant on the said Sir Robert Gounings part to lay out as much Mony in the Purchase of Lands as would amount to 110 l. per Annum to be setled on the said Dame Ann for her life remainder to the Heirs of the said Sir Robert Gouning which was intended to be an Inlargement of his Real Estate and to be for the benefit of his Heir but the said Defendant Dame Ann refuseth since the death of Sir Robert Gouning her Husband to whom she is Administratrix to execute the said Covenant in Specie by Purchasing of Lands of 110 l. per Annum to be setled according to the Covenant as aforesaid and which ought to come to the Plaintiffs as Coheirs of the said Sir Robert Gouning The Defendants insisting Covenant to settle Lands of 120 l per Annum to the said Remainder to the Heirs of the Husband Wife Administratrix refuseth the Bill was dismist that the said Covenant was made in favour of the said Dame Ann only and not for the Plaintiffs the Heirs benefit and the Defendant also as Administratrix claims Title to the Mortgaged Lands at Siston insisting that the same are a Chattel Lease for a long Term of years which by Assignment came to Mary Gouning Sister of the said Sir Robert and that she afterwards procured a Release of the Equity of Redemption for 950 l. including therein the Mony due upon the said Mortgage and that she purchased the Reversion in Fee thereof in the name of her Brother Sir Robert which she did on purpose to keep the Lease distinct and separate and that it ought not to go to the Heir but to the Administratrix But the Plaintiff insists That the said Lease ought to attend the Inheritance which Mary Gouning to whom the Plaintiffs are Heirs bought in for that purpose in the name of the said Sir Robert her Brother and that the same ought to come to the Plaintiffs as other the Real Estate of the said Sir Roberts This Court declared Lease to attend the Inheritance as to the Lands at Siston it was an Inheritance and ought to go to the Heirs at Law and decreed accordingly And as touching the Covenant for Purchasing Lands of 110 l. per Annum this Court dismist the Bill Eyre contra Hastings 35 Car. 2. fo 590. THat Henry Eyre deceased Relief upon a Mortgage the Plaintiffs Brother being seized of Lands 22 Car. 2. Mortgaged the same for 200 l. to Giles Eyre the Plaintiffs Son and the said Henry Eyre Covenanted to pay the Mortgage money and gave Bond for performance of the Covenants and the said Henry dying without Issue and Intestate the premisses descended on the Plaintiff as Brother and Heir and Administration was granted to Dorothy his Relict who paid the Mortgage money and Interest then due to the said Giles Eyre the Mortgagee in relief of the Plaintiff who ought to enjoy the premisses discharged of the Mortgage money and the said Dorothy made her Will and the Defendant Ralph Hastings Senior her Executor hath got the Mortgaged premisses Assigned to him and insists He ought to hold the same till the 200 l. and interest be paid him by the Plaintiff That the Defendant Ralph Junior an Infant claims the premisses by the Will of the said Dorothy who devised the same to him To be relieved against them and the Plaintiff to have the Inheritance of the premisses discharged from the payment of the Mortgage money and Interest and the Bond delivered up is the Bill The Defendant Hastings Senior insists Whether Mortgage Money be paid by the Administrator in relief of the Heir That the said Dorothy paid the said Mortgage money and interest but not in relief of or for the benefit of the Plaintiff and thereupon the premisses were Assigned to the said Hastings Senior in Trust for the said Dorothy who had an equitable Right to all her Husbands Estate and Dorothy devised the said premisses to Hastings Junior her Godson The Master of the Rolls decreed the Plaintiff to enjoy the premisses against the Defendant This Cause was Re-heard by the Lord Keeper and this Defendant the Infant insists That he is much prejudiced by the Decree for that thereby he is stript of the Estate in question devised to him by the said Dorothy's Will without payment of the money and interest there being no Covenant in the said Mortgage Deed for payment of the money and interest or any Bond but the Plaintiffs Counsel insisted That Dorothy paid the Mortgage money and interest for the Plaintiffs benefit The Defendant insisted that Dorothy declared the Mortgage money and interest was paid in relief of the Heir at Law This Court declared If there be no Covenant in the Mortgage Deed for payment of the Money the Administrator is not obliged to discharge it That in Case there was not any Covenant in the Deed for payment of the Mortgage money and Interest the said Dorothy the Administratrix was not obliged to discharge the same Massingberd contra Ash 35 Car. 2. fo 466. THis Court ordered a Case to be Stated in this Cause Executory Devises upon the Deed only by way of Executory Devise to bring the question arising into Determination as if in a Will and in such method as if the Trust and Limitations in the deed had been Limited and Created by the Will upon which Case the Judges of the Common Pleas were to Certifie their Opinions Whether the Remainder of a Residuary Estate of the two Leases or Terms in question limited to the Plaintiff were a good Devise or Limitation or not and the said Judges were also to be attended with another Case made upon both Deed and Will and they are to Certifie what the Law is in Case of Executory Devise as also what is fit to be Decreed in Equity The Case on the Deed only by way of Executory Devise is viz. Two several Terms one for 500 and the other for 99 years by Will dated the 1st of November 1679. and devised in these words viz. That Sir Henry Massingberd and his Assigns shall take the Rents Issues and Profits for and during the Term of his life And that after his Decease Elizabeth his Wife should receive the Rents Issues and Profits during her life And after the Decease of the said Sir Henry and Elizabeth the Eldest Son of the said Sir Henry begotten upon the Body of the said Elizabeth shall take the Profits of the said Lands till Age and then to have the whole Term to him his Executors and Administrators And if such Eldest Son happen to dye before he comes of Age then the second Son of their two Bodies shall take the profits of the said premisses till he come of Age
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
should Marry in his Fathers life time then he should from such Marriage during his Fathers life pay the Defendant Interest for the 2500 l. And the Defendant insists That if the said Plaintiff dyed before his Father the Defendant had lost all his Mony This Cause being first heard by my Lord Finch 9 Feb. 33 Car. 2. who then upon reading the said Defezance declared That as this Cause was he could not releive the Plaintiff otherwise then against the penalty and decreed the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant 2500 l. with Interest This Cause was Re-heard by my Lord Chancellor Jeffreys the Plaintiff insisted That he had by order of this Court 5300 l. upon the said Judgment and that the late Lord Chancellor and Lord Keeper had frequently releived against such fraudulent and corrupt bargains made by Heirs in their Fathers life time and that there was not any real difference where the contract is for Mony and where it is for Goods This Court on reading the Defezance declared it fully appeared The Heir relieved against a concontingent contract made in his Fathers life time because it seemed unconscionable That these Bargains were corrupt and fraudulent and tended to the destruction of Heirs sent hither for Education and to the utter Ruin of Families and as there were new Frauds and subtle contrivances for the carrying them on so the relief of this Court ought to be extended to meet with and correct such corrupt Bargains and unconscionable practices and decreed the former order to be discharged and the Plaintiff to be restored to what he hath paid over and besides the Principal Mony and Interest Durston contra Sandys 2 Jac. 2. fo 108. THat the Defendant being Patron of the Rectory of Messenden in Com' Gloucester The Parson relieved against a Bond given for Resignation and the former Incumbent having Resigned the same the Defendant told the Plaintiff he would present him to the said Rectory worth about 100 l. per Annum and the Plaintiff coming to the Defendant for the said Presentation the Defendant drew a Bond of 300 l. penalty with Condition That the Plaintiff should resign the said Rectory at any time within six Months Notice which the Plaintiff sealed and thereupon the Plaintiff was Instituted and Inducted and was ever since a constant Resident on the place and hath been at charge of Repairs and the Plaintiff demanded Tithes of the Defendant who refuses to pay the same but gave the Plaintiff Notice to resign who Resigned the said Rectory into the Hands of the Bishop of Gloucester but the Bishop refused to accept the said Resignation and ordered the Plaintiff to continue to serve the Cure declaring That he would never countenance such Unjust practices of the Defendant but ordered his Register to enter it as an Act of Court That the Plaintiff had tendred his Resignation and that the said Bishop had rejected it That the Defendant Arrested the Plaintiff on the said Bond for not Resigning so to be relieved against the said Bond is the Plaintiffs Suit The Defendant insisted That the Plaintiff demanded more than his just due for Tithes whereupon the Defendant refused payment and that the Defendant requesting the Plaintiff to resign according to the Condition of the said Bond the Defendant Arrested him which he hopes is Just for him to do and that this Court will not hinder the prosecution and that the Plaintiff hath no colour of Relief in this Court against the said Bond and insist That the Reason of his Arresting the Plaintiff on the said Bond was his Non-residence and litigious Carriage to the Parishioners This Court declared That such Bonds taken by Patrons from their Clerks to Resign at pleasure may be good in Law yet ought to be enjoyned and damned in Equity whensoever they are used to any ill purposes And the Defendant making ill use of the said Bond his Lordship decreed That a perpetual Injunction be awarded against the Defendant to stay proceeding at Law upon the said Bond. Knight contra Atkyns 2 Jac. 2. fo 604. THat the Plaintiff is Brother and Heir as well of John as Benjamin Knight Marriage Agreement to have Monies laid out in Lands for a Joynture to such uses the Remainder to the use of the right Heirs of the Husband The Mony is not laid out the Husband dies without Issue the Mony decreed to the Plaintiff being right Heir and also Executor of the said Benjamin and the said John Knight being seised of a Plantation in Barbadoes of 1000 l. per Annum by his Will declared his debts to be paid and gave several Legacies and made his Brother Benjamin sole Executor and gave him the residue of all his real and personal Estate and the said Benjamin proved the Will and afterwards a Treaty of Marriage was between the said Benjamin and Sir Johnathan Atkyns on behalf of Frances the Daughter of Sir Jonathan upon which Treaty it was agreed that Sir Jonathan should give the said Benjamin 1500 l. as a Portion with the said Frances and for a Joynture in case Frances survived Benjamin was to add 1500 l. and the said Sums to be laid out in a purchase of Lands to be setled upon Benjamin and Fraâ—â—â—s for life and for a Joynture for Frances in lieu of her Dower and after their decease to the Issue between them and for want of such Issue to the right Heirs of the said Benjamin and until such purchase the said respective Sums of 1500 l. to be paid into the hands of the Feoffees and the increase thereof to the uses aforesaid but in regard such a purchase could not be speedily found out Sir Jonathan and Benjamin became mutually bound to each other by Bonds of 3000 l. penalty with Condition reciting That there being suddenly a Marriage to be had between the said Benjamin and Frances and for setling a future Maintenance upon Frances in case she survived and upon the Issue between them If therefore Sir Jonathan his Heirs Executors c. should pay as a Marriage portion with the said Frances into the hands of two Feoffees to be joyntly appointed between them 1500 l. which with the like Sum to be paid by Benjamin was to be laid out upon good Security real or personal and the increase thereof for the uses aforesaid and in case the whole was not provided within a short time then so much as either party should deposit and the Remainder with all convenient speed then the said Bonds to be void That such provision was sufficient and in full of any Dower the said Frances might have to Benjamin's Estate That no Feoffees being appointed the 1500 l. still remains at Interest in Sir Jonathans hands And the said Benjamin for payment as well of his own as his Brother Johns debts and legacies and to oblige his real and personal Estate for performance of the Marriage Agreement did by Deed in 1681. convey unto Trustees all his Plantations Houses