Plaintiff Charlotta his Daughter and Heir The Defendant Sir Richard Middleton insisted That Sir Thomas Middleton his Brother had in Consideration of 184 l. to him paid in 1680. conveyed to the said Defendant and his Heirs two Messuages being 11 l. 10 s. per Annum in Com' Denbigh and taking notice that the same was comprized in his Wives Joynture declared he would leave or give his Wife by Will or otherwise a sufficient compensation for the same so that he should not be Troubled And the Defendant insists That the 200 l. per Annum given her by the Will was intended to be as a Compensation and insists That Sir Thomas intended his Daughter more than 16000 l. and that such part of the personal Estate as was not specifically devised to his Executrix which was all he intended her ought to be applied towards satisfaction of the Testators debts and legacies and the Plaintiffs Portion and the rather for that by the true Construction of the Will the real Estate is subjected only supplementarily Real Estate subjected to pay Debts only supplementarily and that part of the personal Estate intended to the Executrix is specifically devised to her the Devise of the Goods and Stock were only intended in case the Plaintiff Dame Charlotta should live on her Joynture but she not residing on her Joynture he insists she is not Intituled to the said Stock and Goods and as to all other the Goods and Stock and Furniture the Defendant was well Intituled by the Will as Heir male of the Family according to the limitation of the Will The Plaintiff insists That the personal Estate not being devised for payment of of debts and provision being made for payment thereof out of the real Estate doth submit to the Court Whether the personal Estate ought to be applied for debts and legacies the real Estate being sufficient to do the same and whether if she be compelled to pay the debrs and legacies therewith she shall not be reimbursed out of the real Estate The Questions arising upon the said Will and now debated are viz. First Whether the personal Estate not specifically devised ought to come in Aid of the real Estate and be subject to the debts and legacies chargeable thereon Secondly Whether the Plaintiff Charlotta ought to have any greater Portion by the Settlement and Will than 16000 l. and whether she ought to have the several yearly Maintenances given by the said Deed and Will and to what time and times and whether the Stable of Horses did not belong unto her as being given to whomsoever shall be the Testator's Heir she being the Testator's Heir Thirdly Whether the Plaintiff the Lady Charlotta Middleton ought not besides her Joynture to have her Annuity of 200 l. per Annum and to have Furniture and Stock for her Joynture House and Lands and to have the Jewels and Chamber plate and Furniture of her Chamber as her Paraphanalia This Court declared it was intended the Daughter should have only 16000 l. Portion and that such of the Goods and Stock and Houshold-stuff at Chirke Castle which were devised to the Defendant Sir Richard Middleton did belong and ought to be enjoyed by the said Sir Richard Personal Estate not specifically devised to be applied to payment of debts and the Real Estate not subjected thereto and that the personal Estate not specifically devised away and which is not to be set out to the Plaintiff the Lady Middleton pursuant to the said Will ought to be applied and paid towards payment of the Debts and Legacies and the Portion of the Daughter and that the Plaintiff the Lady Middleton besides her Joynture which she ought to enjoy free from Incumbrances ought to have and enjoy the said Annuity of 200 l. per Annum Annuity in Augmentation of a Joynture and Arrears given and devised to her by the said Testator and that she ought to have her Paraphanalia and proportion of the Goods Houshold stuff and Stock for furnishing and stocking her Joynture-house and Demeasns to be set out by the Trustees according to the Will and the Daughter to have both the Maintenances by Will and Deed of Settlement and the Stable of Horses and all things specifically devised to her by the Will and decreed accordingly Whitmore contra Weld 1 Jac. 2. fo 106. THat William Whitmore deceased in 1675. by his Will devised to the Earl of Craven for the use of William Whitmore his Son the Plaintiff Frances Whitmores late Husband all the surplusage of his personal Estate and made his Son William Whitmore Executor and the said Earl of Craven his Executor during the Minority of his said Son and the said William the Father died and left a personal Estate of 40000 l. that William the Son at his Fathers death being but of the Age of 13 years the said Earl proved his Fathers Will and possessed all the personal Estate and the said William the Son having attained the Age of 18 years not having proved the said Will and being Intituled to the surplus of the said perfonal Estate in 1684. made his Will and thereby devised to the Plaintiff Frances all his personal Estate and whatsoever lay in his power to give and made her his Executrix and died in 1684. and the Plaintiff Frances being of the Age of 18 years proved his Will and is thereby Intituled to the personal Estate of William the Father But the Defendants one of them being Sister of William the Father and the other the Children and Grandchildren of the Sisters of the said William Whitmore the Father pretend the surplus of the personal Estate of William the Father belongs to them The said William Whitmore the Fathers Will is in these words viz. The Surplus of my Personal Estate my Debts Legacies and Funeral paid and satisfied I give to the Right Honourable William Earl of Craven for the use of my only Son William Whitmore and his Heirs lawfully discended from his Body and for the use of the Issue Male and Issue Female discended from the Bodies of my Sisters Elizabeth Weld deceased Margaret Kemesh and Ann Robinson in Case that my only Son William Whitmore should decease in his Minority without having Issue lawfully discended from his Body I Nominate and appoint my only Son William Whitmore Executor of my last Will and Testament I nominate and appoint the Earl of Craven during the Minority of my only Son William Whitmore Executor of my last Will and Testament The Defendant Dame Ann Robinson insists she is the Surviving Sister of William Whitmore the elder and so is Intituled to the Administration of William the Elder unadministred by William the younger and the Defendant Sir John Robinson and others the younger Children of the said Dame Ann Robinson insist That they are instituted by William the Fathers Will to an equal share of the surplus of the personal Estate of William the Elder the rather for that William the Elder made a Settlement
to be Re-heard before the Lord Keeper Bridgman who declared He saw no cause to alter the said former Decree and so confirmed it Brabant contra Perne 21 Car. 2. fo 146 344. DEpositions of Witnesses under the Hand of a Six-Clerk then in a Cause between Butt and Perne about Thirty years since the Plaintiff in this Cause prayed the same might be recorded the Record of the Original Depositions in that Cause being lost But the Defendant Pernes's Counsel insisted Copies of Depositions not to be recorded or exemplified it would be of dangerous consequence and president to suffer Copies of Depositions to be Recorded and used as Evidence in case of Title of Land there being no Cause in Court or parties to the said former Suit there being since the dismission of the said former Suit two Trials brought by the said Butt concerning the said things in question upon both which two Nonsuits passed against the said Butts Title the Witnesses which were examined in this Court being all then living and two Verdicts upon full Evidence on both sides and one other Verdict since 1664. hath been found for the Defendant's Title against the now Plaintiffs Title and some of the Witnesses at the said Trial have sworn otherwise than is expressed in those Copies of the Depositions which the Plaintiff would have now recorded and exemplified This Court would not allow the said Copies of the Depositions to be recorded or exemplified but they being before Ordered so to be by the Master of the Rolls it is Ordered they shall be vacated and made void and cancelled and taken off the File Alexander contra Alexander 21 Car. 2 fo 324. THe Suit is Assets to discover the Estate of Richard Alexander deceased which is come to the Defendants hands to satisfy a debt of 300 l. due to the Plaintiff from the said Richard Alexander The Defendant insisted that the Plaintiff ought not to have Relief in this Court in regard the Assets in the Defendants hands were legal Assets and nothing appeared but that the Plaintiff had her proper remedy at Law having not proved any thing more to be in the Defendants hands than was confessed in the Defendant's Answer But the Plaintiff insisted Bill to discover Affets That this Court hath directed Accounts in cases of this nature to avoid circuity of Action and further charge and trouble of Suits and that this Court being possest of the Cause and the parties at Issue on Proofs the same was as proper for this Court as at Common Law This Court ordered Presidents to be searched where this Court hath directed Accounts and given Relief in this Case and the Cause coming to be heard on the Presidents and Merits thereof and the Plaintiffs insisted that there is sufficient Assets of the said Richard Alexander come to the Defendants hands to satisfie the Plaintiffs debt with Overplus This Court decreed the Defendant to come to an Account for the Estate of one Blackhall unadministred Yate contra Hooke 21 Car. 2. fo 939. THat John Hele on the 23d Dec. 1654. Mortgage by demise and re-demise for 2000 l. mortgaged Longs Court and other Lands to Jasper Edwards his Executors Administrators and Assigns for 99 years and the said Edwards on the 25th of Dec. 1654. re-demised the same to the said John Hele for 98 years at a Pepper Corn Rent on Condition That if the said John Hele his Heirs Executors Administrators and Assigns did not pay to the said Jasper Edwards his Executors Administrators and Assigns 2150 l. at a certain day therein mentioned that then the said Re-demise to be void and Covenanted for him his Heirs Executors and Administrators to pay the same accordingly and in Hillary Term 1654. the said John Hele acknowledged a Judgment of 4000 l. to the said Jasper Edwards for the performance of the Covenants in the said Demise and Re-demise and after in 1656. the said John Hele for 500 l. mortgaged the said premisses to Joseph Jackson his Executors Administrators and Assigns reciting the said Mortgage to Jasper Edwards to have and to hold the said premisses to the said Joseph Jackson his Executors Administrators and Assigns for the residue of the said term demised to the said Jasper Edwards and to hold the Reversion to the said Joseph Jackson his Heirs and Assigns for the use of the said Joseph Jackson his Heirs and Assigns for ever on Condition That if the said John Hele his Executors c. paid to the said Jackson his Executors c. 515 l. in June next following then the said Deed of Mortgage to be void and the said John Hele to Re-enter as in his former Estate and the said John Hele Covenanted with the said Jackson his Heirs c. to pay the said 515 l. and for further confirmation granted to the said Jackson all his Equity of Redemption and afterwards the said Edwards and Hele for 2000 l. paid by Jackson to the said Edwards the said Edwards and Hele assigned the said premisses to Jackson with Condition or Proviso That if the said Hele his Heirs or Executors should pay to the said Jackson his Executors c. 2060 l. then the said demise from Hele to Edwards to be void and afterwards in 1657. Edwards assigned the said Judgment of 4000 l. to the said Jackson his Executors c. and the said Hele in 1660. died leaving the said Defendant Sir Thomas Hooke his Nephew and Heir And the said Jackson having made his Will and devised to his Daughter Sarah Wife of the Defendant Alford 2000 l. and to the said Joseph Jackson his Son 2000 l. with his Lands Tenements c. and to the Heirs of his Body and for want of Issue then the one half of his Lands so given to his Daughter Ann Yate and the other half to his Daughter Earle and the Issue of their Bodies equally and that in case his personal Estate fell short then every Legatee to abate in proportion to make it up the one half and the other half his Son Joseph should make good out of what he had bequeathed to him and made the Defendants Yate Earle and Aldworth Executors and if his Estate should amount to more than he had bestowed then that the said Joseph and Sarah should have the one half of it and his Son Yate and his Wife and his Son Earle and his Wife and what Child he should have living at his decease the other half Afterwards the said Joseph Jackson having in his Account accompted the said Mortgage Mony as part of his personal Estate in 1661 died leaving the said Joseph Jackson his Heir that no Entry had been made either by the Testator in his life time or by the said Joseph his Son and Heir upon the said mortgaged premisses but the said John Hele and Sir Thomas Hooke had received all the Rents and Profits So as the Question was Whether the said Mortgage Moneys are due and payable to the Heir or Executor
said debt nevertheless that debt ought to be made good out of the said Pincheons Estate whatever and decreed accordingly Ramsden contra Farmer al' 28 Car. 2. fo 516. THat Simon Carill was seised in Fee of Lands Lands conveyed to Trustees for payment of Debt conveyed the same to Trustees to sell and dispose thereof for performance of his Will who by his Will devised the said premisses to the said Trustees and their Heirs to pay his debts and made Elizabeth his Wife his Executrix who afterwards married Mr. Barnes and the said Trustees with the consent of the said Elizabeth conveyed the premisses to Sir John Carill and others in Trust in the said Will Trust assigned and the said Barnes after died and the said Elizabeth married one Machell and by Deed 22 Car. 1. the said Trustees Carill c. with Elizabeth conveyed the said premisses to the said Machell and his Heirs and in 1646. the said Machell with the like consent conveyed to Duncombe Heath and Baldwin and their Heirs in Trust that they after the said Simons Debts and Legacies paid should convey to the said Elizabeth and her Heirs or to such as she by Deed or Will appoint That the said Elizabeth raised Monies and paid the said Simons Debts and Legacies and performed the said Will and after the said Machell's death Elizabeth by Will 1650. devised all the said premisses to her Son John Carill for life and after his decease to the first Son of the Body of the said Son lawfully begotten or to be begotten and to his Heirs And if her said Son should not have a Son but one or more Daughters then she devised the premisses to the first Daughter of the Body of her said Son and to her Heirs That the said John Carill in the said Elizabeths life time had a Son whose Name was John who died in her life time and soon after Elizabeth died and her said Son John Carill survived her and never had any other Son after Elizabeth Machells death and the said John Carill died and left the Plaintiff Lettice his eldest Daughter and the Defendant Elizabeth his second Daughter and the Defendant Margaret his third Daughter and the said Lettice the Plaintiff claims the premisses as eldest Daughter But the Defendants Elizabeth and Margaret insist They ought to have their equal parts with the Plaintiff Lettice in the premisses and that the said Simon had not power to make such Settlement or Will but say he was only seised for life of the premisses and that Elizabeth Machell joyned in the Settlement at her Son John Carill's Marriage and if there were such a Will of the said Elizabeth Machell yet the said John Carill had a Son named John Carill Construction of the words of a Will who was Born after the death of the said Elizabeth Machell and lived some time after her death without Issue and by the words of the Will the Trust is determined This Court not being satisfied as to the Birth and death of the said John Carill directed a Tryal on this Issue whether John Carill Grandson of Elizabeth Machell dyed during the Life of the said Elizabeth Machell or after her decease That upon a Tryal on the said Issue it was found that the said John Carill the Grandson outlived the said Elizabeth Trusts determined and therefore the Defendants insist that the Trust limited by the Will of the said Elizabeth Machell is fully determined This Court declared they saw no cause to relieve the Plaintiffs Bill in this matter and so dismist the Bill accordingly Salter contra Shadling 28 Car. 2. fo 66. THat Bryan late Lord Bishop of Winton being possest of the Mannor of Pottern by Lease from the Bishop of Salisbury Will. made to Sir Richard Chaworth in Trust for the said late Bishop of Winton by his Will Devised 200 l. per Annum should be paid out of the profits of the said Lease to William Salter the Plaintiffs late Husband his Nephew during his Life and that the Estate in Law in the said Lease should continue in Sir Richard Chaworth during his Life and the Surplusage of the profits he Devised to the said William Salter to whom he also Devised the Lease after Sir Richard Chaworths death and made Sir Richard Chaworth and others Executors who consented to the said Devise and about 16 Car. 2. William Salter made his Will and as to his Interest in Pottern he devised the same to Trustees that they should permit the Plaintiff to receive the profits during her Widdow-hood on Condition she renewed the Term to 21 years Construction upon the words of a Will once in seven years and if the Plaintiff should Marry or dye then he declared the profits of the Premises to go to his two Daughters Ann and Susanna and the Survivor of them and their Heirs and after their Deaths without Heirs of their Bodies then to his right Heirs and Devised all the rest of his Personal Estate should be to his Executors and Trustees for the benefit of his said Daughters and made the Plaintiff and the said Trustees Executors That the said two Daughters are since dead intestate and the Plaintiff being their Administrator is Intituled to the whole Term and Trust of the said Lease of Pottern as Administrator to her said two Daughters according to the said William Salters Will and the true Exposition thereof the same being devised in manner as aforesaid The defendant Charles Cleaver the Infant being Eldest Son and Heir of Dame Briana Cleaver deceased who was one of the Sisters and Coheirs of the said William Salter and the Defendant Stradlings Wife being his Sister and Coheir insist that according to William Salters Will and for that no present interest in Pottern was Devised to his two Daughters but only Contingent possibility of Interest in case the said Plaintiff should Marry or dye neither of which having since hapned and the said Daughters being since dead the Interest and Term in Pottern ought to come to them as Heirs to the said William Salter and not to the Plaintiff as Administratrix to her two Daughters the rather for that they consented to a decree for Sale of Lands which would have come to them as Heirs at Law to preserve Pottern from Sale for the payment of William Salters debts This Court declared that according to William Salters Will and the disposition therein made of Pottern the whole Interest of the said Term and Trust therein was well passed in the Plaintiff and that the Heirs of Salter can have nothing to do therewith nor have any Interest therein and Decreed the Plaintiff to enjoy the same against the Defendants Still contra Lynn al' 28 Car. 2. fo 195. Bill is to be relieved for 123. Acres of Land THat Philip Jacobson Deceased Settlement being possest of a Capital Messuage or Tenement and Lands by Lease from the Crown Dat. 13 Car. 1. for the Term of 60
not having made an Appointment it ought to be taken for her Intention that the Plaintiff should have the Mony and therefore decreed the Defendants the Trustees to convey to the Plaintiff and deliver to him 1400 l. and the Securities for the 2000 l. Green contra Rooke 31 Car. 2. fo 351. THat Lawrence Rooke Devise Father to the Defendant Heyman Rooke and to the Plaintiff Mary being seised in Fee or Fee-tail or other Estate of Lands by Deed of the 26th of August 1650. granted the premisses to Edward Scot and others for 80 years if he so long lived and afterwards conveyed the sameon the 27th of the same Month unto Sir Henry Heyman and Peter Heyman and their Heirs for the term of his life and by Deed the 20th of October then next following and by a Recovery in pursuance thereof the said premisses were setled on the said Sir Henry and Peter Heyman and their Heirs for the life of the said Lawrence Remainder as to part to the use of Barbary Wife of the said Lawrence for her life for a Joynture and after as to part to the said Sir Henry and Peter Heyman for 99 years in Trust to raise 1000 l. for the portion of the eldest Daughter of the said Lawrence and then to the use of the first Son of the said Lawrence in Tail Male with the Remainder over That the said Lawrence and Barbara are dead and the Defendant Heyman Rooke is his first Son and the Plaintiff Mary is his eldest Daughter and the Portion of 1000 l. is due to her and the same being unpaid Peter Heyman the surviving Trustee assigned the term of 99 years to the Plaintiff Greene to enable him to raise the Mony and the Defendant Heyman Rooke hath mortgaged the same premisses to the other Defendants so the Question is Who hath the right or equity of Redemption and the Bill is also to have the Plaintiff Maries Portion paid or the equity of Redemption foreclosed The Defendant Heyman Rooke by Plea insisted That George Rooke his Grandfather by Will in 1647. devised the premisses unto Lawrence Rooke his eldest Son and Father to the Defendant Heyman Rooke for life only Remainder to the first second third and fourth Sons of the said Lawrence in Tail Remainder to John Browne and others for their lives in Trust for the better securing and preservation of the several Remainders limited unto the several Sons of the said Lawrence Rooke with Remainders over That the said George Rooke died without revoking or altering the said uses limited in his Will and so Lawrence Rooke could not by the said Deeds or Recovery bar or cut off the Remainder limited in and by the said Will in regard the said Browne and the other Trustees for preserving of the contingent Remainders were living since 1650. in which year the term of 99 years was created This Court declared Devise to Father for life Remainder to the first Son c. Remainder to Trustees for 99 years to support the Remainders it s a good term to support the Remainders notwithstanding the same is limited and inserted after the limitation to the first Son it being in the case of a Will That the term limited to the Trustees in the Will for their Lives for the preservation of the contingent Remainders to the several Sons of the said Lawrence Rooke was a good Term and a State to support the said contingent Remainders notwithstanding the same is limited to the said Trustees and inserted in the said Will after the limitation to the first and other Sons of Lawrence Rooke in Tail Male for the same being in the Will and the intent of the Testator plainly appearing so in the Will they held the said Plea and Demurrer to be good and so dismist the Plaintiffs Bill Trethervy contra Hoblin 26 Car. 2. fo 114. THe Plaintiff being a Purchaser of the premisses Bill to discover a Title calls the Defendant to discover his Title who insists on a long Lease of a 1000 years which was found by Verdict for the Defendant And the Defendant insists for Cost Costs for that the Plaintiffs Suit in this Court was causlesly and vexatiously brought by the Plaintiff The Plaintiff insists 〈◊〉 That he being not able to try the validity of the said Lease at Law during the life of Oliver one of the Defendant This Court is satisfied Suit for discovery and to preserve Testimonies and the Plaintiff to pay no Costs that the Plaintiff had good ground to bring this Suit for a discovery and relief and to preserve the testimony of his Witnesses it falling out to be a severe Case upon the Plaintiff so no reason for the Plaintiff to pay any Cost either at Law or in this Court Boughton contra Butter 32 Car. 2. fo 379. THis Cause was referred to Sergeant Rainsford to certifie touching the Inclosure whether advantagious and whether the Parties had consented thereunto who had drawn up a Certificate Certificate ordered to to be filed though not delivered in the life of the Certifier all written with his own Hand but he dying before he had declared the same It was prayed by the Plaintiff that the said Certificate might be filed and taken to be authentick as if he had delivered the same to either party The Defendant insisted That the said Certificate had no date and that the Sergeant never intended to deliver the same This Court Ordered the said Certificate to be filed notwithstanding the Objections made thereto by the Defendant Tucker contra Searle 31 Car. 2. fo 423. THat John Bassano the Plaintiff Frances Father by deed 20 July 1640. Marriage Settlement in consideration of a Marriage between him and Elizabeth the Plaintiff Frances Mother and a Marriage Portion Covenanted to stand seized of Lands to the use of the said John and Elizabeth for their lives and after to the first Son of the said John and Elizabeth and so to the second third and other Sons and the Heirs of their Bodies remainder to the right Heirs of the said John Bassano the Elder for ever on Condition and Limitation that if the said John Bassano should have Issue Female and not Issue Male by Elizabeth then his Right Heirs to pay the first and second Daughters of the said John by the said Elizabeth 300 l. a piece to be chargeable on the said Lands and if more than two Daghters then the said Lands for the full value of them to be sold should equally be divided amongst such Daughters that the said Bassano had no Issue Male by Elizabeth but had Issue Female viz. Elizabeth their Eldest Daughter the Plaintiff Frances their Second and another Elizabeth their youngest that Elizabeth the Eldest died in the life of her Father and Mother and that at the death of John the Father there being only the Plaintiff Frances living but the said Elizabeth the Mother being ensient with Elizabeth the youngest Daughter of the said John Bassano
dying of Thomas without Issue whereby the Earldom shall descend this shall go over to Charles that cannot be for it hath no Freehold to support it and so it s a Term in gross further there cannot by the Rules of Law or Equity be a Remainder for years of a Term limited after an Estate Tail neither directly nor upon Contingency as in Burges's Case but the Law will allow a remainder directly upon an Estate for life so likewise upon a Contingency if that were to happen during the Continuance of the particular Estate But this case is a step further and not to be allowed they relied chiefly upon Child and Bayles Case which was put thus by Chief Baron Mountague a Devise by A. of a Term to William his Eldest Son and his Assigns and if he die without Issue then to Thomas his youngest Son It was Judged in the Exchequer Chamber to be a void remainder because thereby a perpetuity would ensue though it was argued in that case that it was given upon a Contingency to the younger Son which would soon be Determined and end in a short time Chief Baron Mountague put this for Law a Term may be limited to one and the Heirs Males of his Body upon a Contingency to happen first with Limitation over if that Contingency do not happen it is a good Limitation as if a Term be limited to the Wife for Life and then to the Eldest Son if he over-live his Mother and the Heirs Males of his Body the remainder over to a younger Son if the Eldest Son dye in the life of the Mother the Limitation to the second Son may be good but if there be an Instant Estate Tail created of a Term tho there be a Contingency as to the expectation of him in remainder yet this is such a Total Disposition of a Term as after which no Limitation of a Term can be and so the Judges were of Opinion that the Plaintiff had no Right to the Term but the decree ought to be for the Defendant The Lord Chancellor Nottingham differed from the Judges and Decreed for the Plaintiff He put some steps or Preliminaries which he agreed with them and which were clear 1. That the Term in question though it were attendant on the Inheritance at first yet upon the hapning of the Contingency it s become a Term in gross 2. That the Trust of a Term in gross can be limited no otherwise in Equity than the Estate of a Term in gross can be limited in Law 3. The legal Estate of a Term for years whether it be a long or a short Term cannot be limited to any Man in Tail with the remainder over to another after his death without Issue this is a direct perpetuity 4. If a Term be limited to a Man and his Issue and if that Issue die without Issue the remainder over the Issue of that Issue takes no Estate and yet because the remainder over cannot take place till the Issue of that Issue fail that remainder is void too Reeves Case 5. If a Term be limited to a Man for his life and after to his First Second and Third Son in Tail Successively and for default of such Issue the remainder over though the Contingency never happen yet the remainder is void though there were never a Son born to him that looks like a perpetuity Sir William Buckhursts Case 6. One Case more and that is Burgesss Case A Term is limited to one for life with Contingent remainders to his Sons in Tail with remainder over to his Daughter though he had no Son yet because it was foreign and distant to expect a remainder after the death of a Son to be born without Issue that having a prospect of a perpetuity was adjudged void 7. If a Term be Devised or Trust of a Term limited to one for life with twenty remainders for life Successively and all the Persons in Esse at the time of such limitation these are all good remainders 8. A Term is Devised to one for 18. years after to C. his Eldest Son for life and then to the Eldest Issue Male of C. for life though C. had not any Issue Male at the time of the Devise or death of the Devisor but before the death of C. it s good being a Contingency that would speedily be worn out Cotton and Heaths Case for there may be a Possibility upon a Possibility and a Contingency upon a Contingency and in truth every Executory devise is so and therefore the contrary Rule given by Lord Popham in the Rector of Chedingtons Case is not Reason These things were agreed by all But the Point is The Trust of a term for 200 years is limited to Henry in Tail provided if Thomas die without Issue in the life of Henry so that the Earldom shall descend upon Henry then to go to Charles in Tail and whether this be a Limitation to Charles in Tail is the Question My Lord Chancellor conceived it a good Limitation as a springing Trust to arise upon a Contingency and which is not of a remote or long Consideration As for the Legal Reasons of this Opinion they were these 1. Many Men have no Estates but what consist in Leases for years Now it would be absurd to say That he who has no other Estate than what consists in Leases for years should be uncapable to provide for the Contingencies of his own Family though they are directly in his immediate prospect he shall not make provisions for Wife and Children upon Marriage 2. It was the Opinion of the Lord Chief Justice Pemberton That had it been thus Penned it had been good If Thomas die without Issue Male living Henry so that the Earldom descend upon Henry then the 200 years limited to him and his Issue shall cease but then a new Term of 200 years shall arise and be limited to the same Trustees for the benefit of Charles in Tail Now what difference is there why a man may not raise a new springing Trust upon the same Term as well as a new springing Term upon the same Trust It is true in 6 Ed. 6. in the time of Lord Chancellor Rich all the Judges delivered their Opinion If a Term of years be devised to one provided if Devisee die living I. S. then to go to I. S. is absolutely void But in 19 Eliz. Dier fo 277 328. it was held by the Judges to be a good Remainder Executory Remainder and that was the first time that an Executory Remainder of a Term was held to be good As for Child and Bayles Case the Case is truly Reported by Crook A Term of 70 years is devised to Dorothy for life then to William and his Assigns all the rest of the Term provided that if William die without Issue living at the time of his death then to Thomas which is in effect the present Case but there was more in it William had the whole Term to him and his
and then to have the whole Term. And if such second Son die before he comes of Age then the third Son to have and receive as aforesaid and if such Son die before he likewise comes of Age then the fourth Son to have and receive as aforesaid And in Case of no Issue Male between Sir Henry and Elizabeth living at the time of the death of the Survivor of them who shall live to their Age and that there shall be one or more Daughter or Daughters of the said Sir Henry and Elizabeth that then the said Daughter or Daughters their Executors and Administrators to have and take their several equal shares and proportions of the said Rents Issues and Profits for and during the said Terms Unless William Massingberd the new Plaintiff should within six Months after the death of the Survivor of them the said Sir Henry and Elizabeth pay such Daughter or Daughters or secure the several Sums following viz. if but one Daughter 1000 l. and if more then to every one of the rest 500 l. a piece and after the same paid or secured in case there shall be no such Son or Daughter living at the time of the death of the Survivor of the said Sir Henry and Elizabeth or which should live to attain his or her Age then the Residue of the said Terms to go and to be to Sir William Massingberd the now Plaintiff his Executor and Administrators Sir Henry Massingberd dies in Sept. 1680. leaving his Wife Elizabeth Ensient of a Son after born and named Henry who died within six Weeks after Sir Henry and Elizabeth had no other Issue which Elizabeth is now the Defendant Quere Who is eldest Son of Sir Henry Whether the said Devise to William Massingberd the now Plaintiff be good The Case upon both Deed and Will That Sir Henry Massingberd being possed of two several Terms Deed of Trust and Will one for 500 and the other for 99 years by the Indenture 2 Nov. 1679 made an Assignment thereof to Trustees upon Trust To permit and suffer him the said Sir Henry and his Assigns to receive the rent and profits during his life and after his death to permit the Defendant Elizabeth then Elizabeth Rayner his intended Wife to receive the Rents and profits during her life then upon Trust to assign the residue of the said Terms to such person or persons and for such Estates and Terms and in such manner as the said Sir Henry should by Will in writing nominate limit and appoint give devise or dispose thereof or any part thereof and in case the said Sir Henry should die Intestate or should not by his Will nominate limit appoint give devise or dispose of the same and every part thereof that then the Trustees should permit the eldest Son of the Body of the said Sir Henry on the Body of the said Elizabeth to receive the Rents Issues and profits of the premisses undisposed of by the Will of the said Sir Henry till he should attain his Age and should then assign to him his Executors and Administrators the residue of the said Terms and in case the eldest Son should die before Age then the Trustees should permit the second Son to receive the Rents and profits with the like Trust to Assign to him at his Age and so to the 3d and 4th Son in like manner And in case of no Issue male between them at the time of the death of the Survivor of them the said Sir Henry and Elizabeth which should live to attain their respective Ages and that there should be one or more Daughter or Daughters between them that then the Trustees should permit the said Daughter and Daughters her and their Executor and Administrators to take their several equal shares and proportions of the said Rents Issues and profits not devised or disposed of the Will of the said Sir Henry for and during the said Terms unless William Massingberd the now Plaintiff the eldest Son and Heir of the said Sir Henry by a former Venter should within six Months after the death of the Survivor of them the said Henry and Elizabeth pay unto such Daughter or Daughters or secure to the good liking of the Trustees the several Portions therein mentioned for the said Daughter or Daughters and after the said Portions paid or secured or in case there should be neither Son nor Daughter living at the time of the death of the Survivor of them the said Sir Henry and Elizabeth or that should live to their respective Age that then the Trustees should assign the residue of the said Terms to the said William Massingberd his Executors and Administrators Then there is a power of Revocation in the said Sir Henry by Deed or Will to revoke and make void this present Deed and the Estate and Estates Trust and Trusts of the premisses or any part thereof After this Sir Henry made his Will in writing and the Defendant Elizabeth his Lady Executrix Residuary Legatee and Residuary Legatee and devised in these words viz. I do hereby give unto her all my Estate which I have by Deed setled upon her according to the true meaning and intent of the said Settlement And also I give her all those other Lands hereby hereafter Setled upon her according to my true intent of my Settlement thereof for her life or on my Issue by her And I do also give her all my Estate concerning my interest in the Colledge Leases from John Rutter of Canterbury and also all my Goods and Chattels not hereby otherwise disposed of I will that all the Coppyholds any ways appertaining to Paston be taken to the use of my Ececutrix and also the Bishops Lease when need is that it be renewed also to her use and also the Lease for 500 years of Paston all at her charge according to the true intent of my Settlements upon her which I hope my Son William will endeavour as before the Almightly to make good unto her and hers and if either I have no Issue by her or that they or their Issue all die so that the succession be expired Then after my Wives decease I hereby give upon my Sons wilful neglect or refusal of his duty herein and not otherwise all my said Lands not setled on him by his Marriage to all the Daughters of my Daughters Sanderson and Stoughton to be divided among them Yet always provided that if my said Son neither neglect nor refuse any reasonable duty herin Then my Will is that after my Wives decease and that all her Issue by me be either dead or have their Portions paid them as is provided That then all my said Lands setled on her for life whether Copy hold Lease hold or Freehold with all the rest unsetled shall discend and be to him and his Heirs for ever Sir Henry Massingberd left no Issue living by that Wife but left his said Wife Ensient of a Son born alive and named Henry but
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
284 Middleton conta Middleton p. 377 Com' Montague contra Com' Bathe p. 417 N NEwton contra Langham p. 108 Newport contra Kinaston p. 110 Nowell contra Robinson p. 248 Nodes contra Batle p. 283 Norton contra Mascall p. 304 O OLiver contra Leman p. 124 P POtter contra Hubbert p. 85 Plummer contra Stamford p. 106 Prigg contra Clay p. 187 Dom ' Pawlet contra Dom ' Pawlet p. 286 Pullen contra Serjeant p. 300 R DOm ' Read contra Read p. 19 Rowley contra Lancaster p. 24 Ramsden contra Farmer p. 115 Ray contra Stanhope p. 157 Raymond contra Paroch ' Buttolphs Aldgate p. 196 Rose contra Tillier p. 214 Ring contra Hele p. 221 S SMith contra Holman p. 23 Shalmer contra Gresham p. 29 Stowell contra Botelar p. 68 Com' Sterling contra Levingston p. 75 Sutton contra Jewke p. 95 Stickland contra Garnet p. 97 Sowton contra Cutler p. 108 Salter contra Shadling p. 117 Still contra Lynn p. 120 Stawel contra Austin p. 125 Stewkley contra Henley p. 166 Saunders contra Earle p. 188 Sale contra Freeland p. 212 Stapleton contra Dom ' Sherwood p. 255 Skinner contra Kilby p. 491 T TOlson contra Lamplugh p. 43 Thorne contra Newman p. 71 Tregonwel contra Lawrence p. 94 Twyford contra Warcup p. 106 Turner contra Turner p. 154 Trethervy contra Hoblin p. 172 Tucker contra Searle p. 173 Thompson contra Atfield p. 216 Turner contra Crane p. 242 W WIndham contra Love p. 14 Wiseman contra Foster p. 22 White contra Ewens p. 49 Warren contra Johnson p. 69 Wallop contra Dom ' Hewet p. 70 Wall contra Buckley p. 97 Winchomb contra Winchomb p. 101 Woolstenholme contra Swetman p. 129 Warwick contra Cutler p. 136 Warner contra Borseley p. 151 Windham contra Jennings p. 247 Woodhall contra Benson p. 290 Com' Winchelsey contra Dom ' Norcliff p. 365 Whitmore contra Weld p. 382 Whitlock contra Marriott p. 386 Y YAte contra Hook p. 39 Books lately Printed for John Walthoe in Vine Court Middle-Temple AN Exact Table of Fees of all the Courts at Westminster as the same were by Orders of the several Courts carefully Corrected and diligently Examin'd by Records and Ancient Manuscripts by the Persons following Viz. The CHANCERY by Sir Miles Cooke Samuel Keck Esq and others The KINGS-BENCH on the Plea-side by W. Turbill and Nicholas Harding On the Crown-side by R. Seyhard and Richard Horton The COMMON-PLEAS by W. Farmerie Silv. Petyt and H. Clift The EXCHEQUER On the Plea-side by R. Beresford Tho. Arden c. On the Equity-side by Butler Buggins Esq Very useful and necessary for all Attorneys Solicitors and Entring-Clerks and indeed for all Persons that have any Business of moment To which is added a Table for the ready finding out the Fees belonging to each Office 2. Reports of Cases Taken and Adjudged in the Court of Chancery in the Reign of King Charles the First and to the 20th Year of King Charles the Second Being Special Cases and most of them decreed with the Assistance of the Judges and all of them referring to the Register-Books Wherein are setled several Points of Equity Law and Practice To which are added Learned Arguments relating to the Antiquity of the said Court its Dignity and Jurisdiction 3. Observations Historical and Genealogical in which the Originals of the Emperor Kings Electors and other the Sovereign Princes of Europe with a Series of their Births Matches more Remarkable Actions and Deaths As also the Augmentations Decreasings and Pretences of each Family are drawn down to the Year 1690. 4. The Law of Obligations and Conditions or an acurate Treatise wherein is contained the whole Learning of the Law concerning Bills Bonds Conditions Statutes Recognizances and Defeazances as also Declarations on Special Conditions and the Pleadings thereon Issues Judgments and Executions with many other useful Matters relating thereunto digested under their proper Titles To which is added a Table of References to all the Declarations and Pleadings upon Bonds c. now extant 5. A compendious and acurate Treatise of Fines Fines upon Writs of Covenant and Recoveries upon Writs of Entry in the Post with ample and copious Instructions how to draw acknowledge and levy the same in all Cases Being a Work performed with great Exactness and full of Variety of Clerkship The Third Edition enlarged REPORTS AND CASES Taken and Adjudged in the COURT of CHANCERY In the REIGN of King CHARLES II. Every contra Gold 20 Car. 2. fo 921. THE Bill is to be Relieved for two Legacies of 1500 l. apiece which the Plaintiff claims as Administratrix to her Daughters Susanna and Martha Every given and secured to them by several Conveyances and by the last Will of William Every their Grandfather The Case is viz. Portions raised by Deed. That the said William Every the Grandfather in consideration of a Marriage between William Every his Son and the Plaintiff Martha a Daughter of Sir John Pool by Deed 22 April 7 Car. 1. did provide That if William his Son should die without Issue male by him on the body of the said Plaintiff Martha and should have two Daughters by the Plaintiff Margaret then living or if the said William should fail to have issue Male which should be living until the same Daughters should respectively attain 18 years of Age or be married that then the Recoveror therein named should stand seised of the Premisses to the use of the Recoverors and their Heirs for the raising 1500 l. apiece for the Portions of the said Daughters and 20 l. a piece per annum for each of their Maintenance in the mean time to be paid at their respective Ages of 18 years or days of Marriage which should first happen and if either of the said Daughters should die before that Age or Marriage the Portion of her so dying to be distributed to the Survivor and if all the said Daughters should die their Portions not paid or payable then the same should be paid to the next Heir of William Every the Grandfather That William Every the Son New Provision by a second Deed and a Will thereupon had Issue by the Plaintiff one Son named William and two Daughters the said Susan and Martha and by Deed of Bargain and Sale and Release thereupon both dated in December 1651 in which Release so much of the Tripartite Indenture as relates to the Daughters Portions is recited William Every the Grandfather Conveys to Gold Doble and Holloway and their Heirs Lands in Somersetshire to the use of William the Grandfather for life and after to Gold Doble and Holloway for 200 years with other Remainders over upon Trust out of the Profits or by granting Leases or Estates to pay his Debts first and then for raising to and for the said Susan and Martha so much Mony as should supply and advance their respective Portions to them severally thereafter to be given by William
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
Deed made by the Plaintiff Eliz. in Feb. 1666. Frandulent Deed. before her Marriage with the Plaintiff Sir Philip Howard and that the Plaintiff Sir Philip in right of his said Wife might have all her benefit and interest in or to the Estate of Sir John Baker her former Husband and receive the Rents and profits of the premisses The Case being that Sir John Baker the Father being seized in Fee of Lands by two Deeds Tripartite of Lease and Release made between himself of the one part Sir Robert Newton deceased of the second and Sir John Baker the Son and Dame Eliz. the Plaintiff and sole Daughter of Sir Robert Newton of the third part in consideration of a Marriage between the Plaintiff Dame Eliz. and Sir John Baker the Son and 4000 l. portion conveyed the same to Sir Robert Newton and his Heirs part of which Lands were for the said Dame Eliz. Joynture and Sir John Baker the Father and Dame Mary his Wife being dead Sir John the Son sold part of the premisses for payment of debts part whereof was the Joynture of Dame Eliz. and in consideration of the said Dame Elizabeth joyning in such sale and parting with her Joynture Sir John her Husband in lieu thereof and of 1500 l. to be paid to Dame Elizabeth for a Joynture house limitted the premisses unsold to the said Dame Elizabeth and the Defendants for 400 years upon Trust by Sale thereof to pay the said Dame Elizabeth the said 1500 l. and also the Rents and profits of the whole until Sale and the residue of the said premisses remaining unsold to Dame Elizabeth during her life and after to wait on the Inheritance And in 1658 the Inheritance was conveyed to Sir Robert Newton and his Heirs and he by Will devised the same to the said Dame Elizabeth for life Remainder to the first Son of the Plaintiff Sir Philip and Dame Elizabeth so the Plaintiff being intituled to the 1500 l. and the term of 400 years after the Trusts performed and so ought in right of the said Dame Elizabeth his Lady to continue in the possession of the premisses and receive the Rents and profits thereof which the Defendants refused to do pretending the term of 400 years is limited to them upon other Trusts and in particular that the Plaintiff Dame Elizabeth before her Marriage to the Plaintiff Sir Philip by her Deed of the 9th of February 1666 Assigned to the Defendants all monies then due or to be payable to her by vertue of the Deed in Trust for her benefit and to be at her disposing during the Joynt lives of her and the said Sir Philip whether she Married or continued Sole and that she should have power by writing under her Hand and Seal to dispose thereof for the benefit of her Daughter by her former Husband and that she hath disposed thereof accordingly which said Deed the Plaintiff insists is fraudulent or with power of revocation and never mentioned to Sir Phillip and that Sir Philip after his Marriage setled 500 l. per Annum on the said Dame Elizabeth for a Joynture which he would not have done if he had known or understood the said Dame Elizabeth had made such Deed or disposition as aforesaid of her former Husbands Estate and since their Marriage she desired leave of Sir Philip that she might receive the Rents and profits of the said Lands of her former Husband without mentioning the said Deed and therefore the same ought to be set aside The Defendants do insist the said Dame Elizabeth before her Marriage with the said Philip did declare to him that who ever did Marry her should have no benefit of any Estate that she had by her former Husband and that Sir Philip did agree to bar himself thereof and take no benefit thereby A Widow makes a Deed of her former Husband Estate and marries the second Husband not privy to it the Deed set aside and the second Husband to enjoy the Estate and that Sir Robert Newton looking upon the Estate as setled on his Grand-children as aforesaid and had given his personal Estate and 700 l. per Annum to the Plaintiffs and their Sons and the said Sir Robert Newton never pretended right to the said Estate or intermedled therewith that there is no reason to set a side the said Deed of the 9th of Feb. aforesaid This Court being assisted with the Judges on reading the said Deed it not appearing unto this Court that the said Sir Philip had any notice of the said Deed 9th of Feb. 1666. till after the death of the said Sir Robert Newton which was several years after the Marriage nor was privy or consented to the making of any such Deed but haveing intimation that Dame Elizabeth intended to dispose of her interest in her former Husbands Estate from such Husband as she should Marry broka off the treaty of Marriage which was afterwards brought on again by some Friends of the said Dame Elizabeth and that the said Sir Philip was induced to Marry the said Dame Elizabeth upon the hopes and confidence of having the interest she had in the Estate of the said Sir John Baker her former Husband without which he would never have married her and that the said Sir Philip never knew of the said Deed of the 9th of Feb. 1666 but the same was a fraud upon Sir Phillip and that therefore no use ought to be made thereof and decreed the said Deed of the 9th of Feb. 1666 be absolutely set aside and no use to be made thereof against the said Sir Philip or any claiming under him Poter contra Habbert 24 Car. 2. fo 591. THis Bill is to have a redemption of a Mortgage made in 1636 Mortgage by the Plaintiffes Father to one Abraham Dawes for 5000 l. and for non-payment of the Mortgage mony Sir Thomas Dawes Son and Heir of the said Abraham Dawes entred in 1641 and he and his Assigns have ever since taken the profits And the Defendant insists that the said Thomas Dawes in 49 conveyed the mortgaged premisses to Hugh Hubbert the Defendants Father for 7000 l. and that in 1641 when Sir Thomas Dawes entred there was 5000 l. due on the Mortgage besides interest so he would be charged without 350 l. per Annum for mean profits since that time and would have 6 l. per Cent. Interest for the 7000 l. from the time it appearing on the conveyance This Cause being first heard by Judge Ransford who ordered the Plaintiffs to redeem Computation of interest monies according to the Statute in force and the account for the Interest of the 500 l. to begin from 1636 the time of lending the mony and from that to 1642 Interest to be paid according to Acts then in force and from 42 to 46 Interest at 8 l. and 4 l. per Cent. The Cause being heard again by the Lord Keeper Bridgeman assisted with Judge Tyrrle Morton and Wild who ordered the
Conscience of the Court in the application of the payment of the Mony and therefore as this Case is the whole Mony having been decreed and setled as aforesaid the Examination of the time of the actual Entry of the said Judgment tended not to the invalidating thereof but only to inform the Court when and how it came to be Recorded Examination of Originals filed is to be in the Courts at Law which in Cases of Originals filed to prevent the Statutes of Limitation and other Cases of like nature are usually Examined in the Courts at Law the Court saw no cause to relieve the Plaintiffs on their Bill of Review and dismissed their Bill of Review Dethick contra Banks 25 Car. 2. fo 143. A Free-man of London did assign over an Adventure to the Defendant his Son A Free-man of London disposeth an Adventure to his Son No breach of the Custom as to the Wives third part against which the Plaintiff complains and insists It is contrary to the Custom of London and tends to defeat the Plaintiff his Wife of a full third part of the personal Estate This Court with the Judges held the disposition to be good and could not relieve the Plaintiff Harmer contra Brooke 25 Car. 2. fo 648. THe Bill is to have an Execution of a Marriage Agreement Bill to perform a Marriage Agreement the Plaintiff Harmer with the encouragement of Thomas Hamling was to marry the Plaintiff Elizabeth the only Daughter and Heir of the said Thomas Hamling the Plaintiff Harmer being a man of a great Trade and in Consideration thereof the said Thomas Hamling was to pay the Plaintiff Harmer 500 l. at Christmass following and to settle on the Plaintiff and his Heirs a House in Sussex and at his death to give to the Plaintiff Elizabeth his Daughter all his Estate real and personal except 400 l. which he intended to the Defendant his Brothers Son whereupon the Plaintiff Harmer married the said Elizabeth but now the said Thomas Hamling the Plaintiffs Father refuses to perform his Agreement and Promise aforesaid the Plaintiff marrying without his consent and liking as is pretended and died without performance thereof and made a Will and the Defendant his Executor which Will the Plaintiff insists was voluntary and ought in Equity to be set aside the Plaintiff being disinherited thereby and to have the said Marriage Agreement performed is the Plaintiffs Bill The Defendant insists That the said Marriage was had by surprize and without the Consent of the said Thomas the Father and that he did never approve of it but when told of it was in great Passion and said his Daughter was undone and then made his Will in these words viz. I give and bequeath unto Elizabeth my only Daughter lately married against my consent and good liking to Francis Harmer the Sum of 20 l. over and above the Sum of 500 l. which I intend to pay her my self in full for her Portion and the said Thomas the Father being afterwards moved to alter his said Will declared he would not alter the same and that he would not be a President to disobedient Children and the Defendant claims the said Estate real and personal by virtue of the said Will. This Court ordered it to be Tried at Law Whether Thomas the Father did agree to give the Plaintiff Francis Harmer with the said Elizabeth any other or further Estate real or personal at any time over and besides the said 500 l. That a Verdict passed for the Plaintiff And after a Trial at Law the Marriage Agreement decreed to be made good That Thomas the Father did agree to give the Plaintiff Francis Harmer with the said Elizabeth a further Estate real and personal besides the 500 l. This Court was satisfied there was such a Marriage Agreement and that the same ought to be made good and decreed accordingly Tregonwell contra Lawrence 25 Car. 2. fo 582. THe Bill is An Injunction to restrain Ploughing or Burn-beating of Pasture to restrain the Defendant being Tenant for life from ploughing up or converting into Tillage Pasture Ground to the damage of the Plaintiffs inheritance The Defendant insisted That the said Land was very full of Bushes and Fuz and that the Ploughing and Burn-beating was an improvement of it The Plaintiff insisted That the Lands are Sheeps-strete or Sheeps-slight the surface or soyl being so thin that if the same be ploughed up two years together the Lands will yield no profit in many years after This Court on reading an Order 20th Febr. 25 Car. 2. and a Certificate of Referrees doth decree That a perpetual Injunction be awarded to restrain the Defendant from Ploughing up or Burn-beating of the said Lands above two years Sutton Vxor ejus contra Jewke 25 Car. 2. fo 178. THat 1500 l. Sum left for a Portion But if she marry without consent then a part to be to another was to be put out at Interest for the use and benefit of the Plaintiff Ann and then the said 1500 l. and the proceed thereof to be paid her at her Age of 21 or Marriage but if the Plaintiff Ann should Marry without the Consent of the Defendant Jewke and his Wife being her Father and Mother or one of them or the Survivor of them then 500 l. part of the said 1500 l. to be paid to such person as the Defendant Jewke his Wife by Writing under her Hand and without her Husband should appoint That the said Defendant Jewke his Wife died in 1668. without making any Appointment so that the Plaintiff Ann is thereupon become intituled to the whole 1500 l. and the proceed thereof That the Plaintiff Ann married in 1671. and this Suit is to be relieved for the 1500 l. and Interest The Defendant Jewke insists That Mary his Wife died in 70. but before her death in 1669. by Deed Parol directed that in case the Plaintiff Ann married without the Consent of her the said Mary or the Defendant Jewke her Husband then 500 l. part of the said 1500 l. to be paid to her and the Defendant or the Survivor of them and that the said Deed was made upon mature deliberation to keep the said Plaintiff in due Obedience and that the Plaintiff Sutton having in a clandestine manner married with the Plaintiff Ann without the Defendant Jewke his privity or consent and after he had forbidden his Daughter to marry with him on the forfeiture of his Blessing or what otherwise she might expect from him the said Defendant Jewke by means thereof and by being Administrator to his late Wife became intituled to 500 l. part of the said 1500 l. So the Chief point now controverted is Whether the Plaintiff Ann. be intituled to the whole 1500 l. or whether she had not forfeited 500 l. thereof by her marriage without her Fathers consent and privity and contrary to his direction and advice His Lordship was fully satisfied 500 l. Decreed
Defendant for 99 years after his death upon Trust in Case he left no Son or such as should die before 21 without Heirs Males and should leave one or more Daughters for raising of 12000 l. if but one Daughter for such Daughter and if two or more Daughters then 20000 l. to be raised for their portions to be equally divided between them and to be due and payable at their respective Ages of 21 years or days of Marriage and the said George died leaving no Son and having only three Daughters viz. Vrsula Elizabeth and one Ann Stawell who died since her Father and that the said Testator George his Relict married the Defendant Seymore and she on the death of her Daughter Ann took the Administration of her Estate and also soon after died leaving the portion of the said Ann in the said 20000 l. Un administrated and Administration of the said Anns Estate was granted to the said Vrsula and Elizabeth her Sister who are intituled to the said Anns personal Estate and that the said 20000 l. ought to be raised by the said Trustees out of the Lands setled as aforesaid but the Defendants the Trustees insist That by the words of the Will it is dubious whether the whole 20000 l. ought to be raised or any more than 12000 l. When Land to be charged with portion or not upon the words of the Will the said Ann being dead unmarried and before 21. And the Defendant the Heir insisted That as the Case is the portions of the said Ann ought not to be charged on the said Lands so the only Question before the Court being whether the Trustees shall raise 12000 l. or 20000 l. for the said Plaintiffs Vrsula and Elizabeth It appearing plainly to this Court that by the words of the said Will that if the said Testator George had two Daughters or more Daughter then 20000 l. should be raised This Court is of Opinion and declared that the Lands ought to be charged with the 20000 l. and the payment thereof to the Plaintiffs Vrsula and Elizabeth Lawrence contra Berny 29 Car. 2. fo 156. THis Case is on a Bill of Review Bill of Review This Court declared they would not make Error by construction and where a Decree is capable of being executed by the ordinary Process and Forms of the Court and where things come to be in such a State and Condition after a Decree made that it requires an original Bill and a second Decree upon that before the first Decree can be executed In the first Case whatever the inniqity of the first Decree may be yet till it be reversed the Court is bound to assist it with the utmost process the course of the Court will bear for in all this the Conscience of the present Judge is not concerned because it is not his Act but rather his sufferance that the Act of his Predecessor should have its due effect by ordinary Forms But where the common Process of the Court will not serve but a new Bill and a new Decree is become nenessary to have the Execution of a former Decree is in its self unjust there this Court desired to be excused in making in its own Act to build upon such ill Foundations and charging his own Conscience with promoting an apparent injustice and to this condition hath the Plaintiff Lawrence brought himself for he forbore to apply himself to this Court to support him as one that claimed under the Decree in 1650 or to pray an Injunction to stop Berneys proceeding at Law but stay'd till Berney had recovered the Land by a Tryal at Bar Where no ordinary Process upon the first Decree will serve but there must be a new Bill to pray Execution of the first Decree by a second Decree and been put into Possession by the Sheriff and now no ordinary Process upon the first Decree will serve but he is drawn to a new Bill to pray Execution of the first Decree by a second Deree and this obligeth the Court to examin the grounds of the first Decree before they make the same Decree again And this Court was not of this Opinion alone but it was also the Opinion of others that were before him who had made several Presidents in like Cases and would not enter further into Arguments of the Errors Lawrences Bill was an original Bill to Execute two Decrees in 1650 and 1651 and the Defendant Berney now also Plaintiff it being cross Causes brought his Bill of Review to Reverse the said Decree c. as Unjust and Erroncous That the first Decree by the Lord Coventry in 30 Car. 1. decreed a Sale of the premisses for a performance of the Trust that in 1650 a Decree was made to frustrate the Lord Coventry's Decree Priske contra Palmer 29 Car. 2. fo 323. THis Court was satisfied the Plaintiff had a quiet enjoyment for a long time and declared Want of a surrender Aided That notwithstanding a Surrender is wanting yet the Plaintiffs Title ought to be supplied in Equity and decreed the Plaintiff to enjoy the premisses and the perpetual Injunction to stay all proceedings at Law Woolstenholm contra Swetnam 29 Car. 2. fo 146. THat Thomas Swetnam deceased Settlement being possessed of a Personal Estate and making provision for his Grand-Children being the Children of Thomas his eldest Son being five in number whereof Peter Swetnam was one did by Deed authorize the Defendant William Swetnam who was his second Son and the Defendant Thomas Swetnam who was his Grandchild to receive 32 l. Rent which was an Arrear of 16 l. per Annum Annuity of Foster's Farm in Trust to be divided amongst his said five Grandchildren at the Age of 21 and the said Thomas the Grandfather by some other Deed charged his whole Lands on a Settlement thereof on the Defendant Thomas with the payment of 1000 l. equally amongst his said five Grandchildren whereof the said Peter was one and in further kindness to the said Peter in 1657. by Will gave him 100 l. to be paid out of the Personal Estate and made the Defendant William his Executor and the said Peters Father to increase his Fortune put out several Sums of Mony in the said William's Name and deposited other Mony in the said Defendants hands for the said Peters use and by his Will surther gave to Peter 30 l. and Peter married the Plaintiff Martha and by his Will devised all his Estate to the said Martha whereby the Plaintiff is intituled to the said Devisee and to the said Peters shate in the 1000 l. so to be relieved for the Sum is the Bill The Defendant William insists That Thomas the Father of Peter died possessed of a Personal Estate of 266 l. and the Defendant as his Executor possest it 1000 l. to be raised and divided amongst five Children one dies before distribution the Survivors shall have his share and not the Devisee of him that is dead and paid
Cutler 30 Car. 2. fo 285. THe Testator deviseth Lands to be held by his Executors Will. Lands devised to be held by Executors till his Son attain 22 years Son dyes before 22 Executors decreed to hold the Lands till the said 22 years till the Testators Son attained 22 years of Age for maintenance of the Executrix and her Children that the said Testators Son dyed before 22 years of Age. This Court decreed the Executrix to hold the Lands against the next Heir until the said Sons Age of 22 years as if the said Son had lived to 22 years and the Plaintiffs debt on Bond to be paid by the next Heir or the reversion to lye liable and charged therewith Jolly contra Wills 30 Car. 2. fo 523. THat Roger Garland Elder Brother Will. Devise of Goods to J. S. for 11 years the remainder over J.S. decreed to deliver the Goods after the 11 years by Will did give unto John Wills the Defendants late Husband the use of all and singular the Goods Plate c. whatsoever then in his House for Term of 11 years from his death and after the 11 years expired he gave the same to his two Nephews Robert and Roger Garland and to his Niece Elizabeth the Plaintiff to be equally divided amongst them and after the 11 years the said Wills was to deliver them to the Plaintiff The Defendant Wills insists that by the bequest of the said Goods for the 11 years she and her Husband to whom she is Executrix are well intituled to the property of them and that the Devisour is void in Law and Equity This Court decreed the Defendants Will to deliver the goods to the Plaintiffs to be divided according to the Will the said 11 years being expired German contra Dom Colston 30 Car. 2. fo 741. THis Court decreed Legatees to refund to make up Assets that in case hereafter any Debt of Sir Joseph Colston should be discovered and recovered against his Executors the Legatees of Sir Joseph Colston are to refund in proportion what they have received for or towards their Legacies to make up Assets for satisfaction thereof Cotton contra Cotton 30 Car. 2. fo 71. 282. THat Nicholas Cotton being seized in Fee of Copyhold Devise and Free hold Lands in Middlesex and Surry of 500 l. per Annum in 1676. dyed without Issue wherebythe same descended to the Plaintiff as Couzen and Heir to the said Nicholas but the Defendant Katherine Cotton pretends that the said Nicholas Cotton made his Will in Writing 25 years since viz. in 1650. having first surrendred the said Copyhold Land to the use of his Will and bequeathed the same to the said Defendant Mrs. Katherine Cotton his Relict and her Heirs but if such Will were the said Nicholas purchased some Lands since which descended to the Plaintiff and that the said Nicholas a little before his death contracted with Sir Thomas Lee and his Trustees for certain Copyhold and other Lands in Sunbury and was to pay 1110 for the same and paid most of the Mony in his Life-time and had possession The Defendant Mrs. Cotton insists that Nicholas Cotton her late Husband deposited in the Hands of the said Sir Thomas Lee or his Trustees 600 l. designing to purchase the said Land in Sunbury but her said Husband Cotton was to have interest for the said Mony and he only rented the said Sunbury Lands and not purchased them because a good Title could not appear but insist that after the death of her Husband she purchased the premisses and paid 320 l more then the 600 l. paid into the said Sir Thomas Lee's Hands and that her Husband by the said Will devised to her all his Real and Personal Estate and made her Executrix This Cause being now heard by Mr. Articles for a purchase and 600 l. paid but interest was paid for it till the Conveyance executed contractor dyes before any conveyance the 600 l. was part of his personal Estate Justice Windham who on reading the Articles between the said Nicholas Cotton and the said Sir Thomas Lee whereby the said Nicholas Contracted with him for the purchase of his Free and Copyhold Lands in Sunbury in Fee simple for 920 l. is of Opinion that the said Nicholas dyed before any Conveyance made by the said Sir Thomas Lee of the said premisses to the said Nicholas and the said Sir Thomas paying Interest for the said 600 l. and the said Nicholas paying Rent for the said premises the said 600 l. at the death of the said Nicholas was part of his personal Estate and as to that 600 l. could not relieve the Plaintiff but difmist the Bill And as to the Morgage made to Perkins by the said Nicholas and the Defendant his Relict it appearing that part of the Morgaged Lands was before that Morgage made Equity of redemption to whom belongeth setled on the said Nicholas and Katherine in Joynture or otherwise so as the same came to her as Survivor this Court is of Opinion that the Equity of Redemption belongs to her as survivor and not to the Plaintiff But as for the other part of the Mortgaged premisses and other matters in the Plaintiffs Bill for which he seeks relief as Heir The question being whether any republication were of the said Nicholas his Will Republication of a Will and whether the same Lands do belong to the Plaintiff as Heir or to the Defendant Katherine as Devisee by force of the said Will. This Court referred that point to a Tryal at Law upon this Issue whether the said Nichelas Cotton did by his said Will devise the said Lands in Shepperton in the Defendants answer mentioned to be purchased by the said Nicholas Cotton of one Rowsell in Fee in 1659. to the said Katherine or not A Tryal at Law having been had upon the point aforesaid a Special Verdict was by the Lord Chief Justice North's direction sound Lands decreed to the Devisee and on a Solemn Argument before all the Judges of the Common Pleas they unanimously gave Judgment for the Defendant that the Lands in question did belong to the Defendant Katherine as Devisee by the said Will. This Court confirmed the Judges Opinion Civil contra Rich 30 Car. 2. fo 338. THat Sir Edwin Rich made his Will whereby he after some Legacies gives and Bequeaths all the residue of his Estate both real and personal to Sir Charles Rich his Heirs and Assigns for ever and maks him Executor of his Will and in his Will says he left his Estate as aforesaid in Trust with him wherewith to reward his Children and Grand-children according to their demerit This Court declared A general Trust in a Will for Children and not a fixed Trust to create a certainty of right That as to Sir Edwins Estate taking the words of the Will of the said Sir Edwin as they were they could amount to no more than a general Trust in Sir
that it should extend only to the Testators Sister Ann Carr and her Children and to the Testators Nephews and Nieces now living and that no Kindred out of the degree of a Brother or Sister to the Testator or a Child of such Brother or Sister ought to come in or have any share of the said Residue and that amongst those that are to come into the Distribution the Executor ought chiefly to consider those that have most need that so they that have more need may have more than they that have less and decreed the same accordingly and as to the said John Buncher who was his Sisters Son and so to have share and was particularly recommended to the Executor who the Court declared had a power to give some more than other this Court ordered the Executor to give him somewhat considerably out of the Residue of the said Estate and the Executor to distribute the remainder to such of the Kindred as are to come into the Distribution as shall appear to the said Executor to have most need and in such manner and proportion as he shall think fit and Sir Samuel Clark one of the Masters of this Court is to see right done in this Case Distribution and the Bill wherein the Plaintiffs which are beyond the degrees of Nephews of the said Testator is to stand dismist Bourne contra Tynt 30 Car. 2. fo 636. THe Case is Will. that Roger Brown the Plaintiffs Brother by his Will in 1671. devised to Executors in Trust all Lands as before that time were Mortgaged to him and all Money due thereupon that they should lay out so much of his Personal Estate as remained after Debts and Legacies paid in a purchase of Lands of Inheritance to be setled on the first Son of his Body and the Heirs Males of the Body of such first Son and so to all Sons in Tail Male and for want of such Issue on the Plaintiff for life remainder to the Plaintiffs eldest Son in Tail remainders over to the Plaintiffs Children in Tail and by his Will declared and devised that in case the Child his said Wife was then big withal should be a Daughter then he gave to her 1000 l. to be paid to her at 21 or 6 Months after Marriage and in case she Marryed with consent of the Trustees then the said Portion to be 3000 l. and it was provided by the said Will that the Trustees out of the Interest of the said 3000 l. should pay for the Maintenance of the said Child 80 l. per Annum and it was also provided that in case such Daughter should dye before such Marriage or Age of 21 then her Portion and Mony so devised to her should go and be for the use and benefit of such Person or Persons as should at any time enjoy his Lands of Inheritance according to the Will and thereby declared the same Money to be laid out in a Purchase of Lands to be setled as aforesaid and also declared that the rest of the Personal Estate not given or disposed of by his Will should all be bestowed in Lands of Inheritance and setled as aforesaid and the said Roger Burne dyed without Issue Male of his Body and about three Months after the said Defendant Florence his only Daughter was Born and the Trustees have not pursuant to the Will laid out the Personal Estate in Lands so that the Plaintiff ought to have the Interest of such Money as should have been laid out in Lands The question in this case being whether the 3000 l. and the Interest thereof over and above the 80 l. per Annum Maintenance of the Defendant Florence should be paid to the Defendant or to the Plaintiff who claims the same by virtue of the Will in case the said Defendant Florence had not happened to be Born the Will being made before she was Born and the Plaintiff claiming the 3000 l. and Interest over and above the said 80 l. per Annum in Case she should dye or not be Marryed or incapacitated to dispose thereof The Defendant insists that the Plaintiff having a very considerable Estate from the Testator by the said Will which would have descended to the Defendant Florence in case she had been born and living at the time of the Death of her said Father and that the Plaintiff cannot have any pretence to the interest of the said 3000 l. as aforesaid for that there is not any Clause or Direction in the Will touching the same Portion and Interest devised upon a contingency of dying or Marriage decreed to be paid into Court for the benefit of the Heir according to the Will in case of the Devisees death This Court declared the 3000 l. and Interest over and above the said 80 l. per Annum belongs to the Plaintiff in case the said Florence dye before she receive the same by the said Will and Decreed that the Interest of the 3000 l. be paid into Court and not to be taken out without good Security given by the said Helena to make good the Benefit thereof to the Plaintiff in case the said Florence dye before 21 years or Marryed as aforesaid as the Will directs Elvard contra Warren al' 31 Car. 2. fo 350. THe Defendant being in Contempt for disobeying a Decree Prisoner by Habeas Corpus brought from Bristol and turned over to the Fleet for that he was in contempt and being a Prisoner in Bristol a Habeas Corpus cum causis was ordered to bring him to the Bar of this Court who was brought up and turned over to the Fleet who is there a Prisoner and refuses to obey the said Decree The Court ordered a Sequestration against his Real and Personal Estate Warner contra Borsley 31 Car. 2. fo 629. THe question being Devise whether a Devise of the Plaintiffs Father by his Will of his Personal Estate and Debts to the Plaintiff in remainder after the death of his Mother and the Devise thereof to her in the first place she being Executrix to the said 1st Testator and the Defendant her Executor were good or not The Plaintiff insisted That the Devise of the personal Estate by the Will of the Testator to his Wife was an absolute Devise to her by operation of Law and was vested in her and so consequently in the Defendant who is Executor of the said Alice by virtue of the said Executor and the Devise or Limitation over to the Plaintiff after the death of his said Mother who was Executrix of the first Testator was absolutely void in Law and the said Defendant as Executor to the Plaintiffs said Mother is well intituled to the said personal Estate devised by the Testators said Will. The Plaintiff insisted That the Devise to the Plaintiff in Remainder after death of his Mother was a good Devise and ought to be countenanced the rather in regard such Devise in the life time of the said Testator and Testatrix was
consented and agreed to by the Relict and Executrix and so decreed at the former hearing This Court declared Devise of a Personal Estate in Remainder after the death of J.S. is a void Devise and Vests wholy in J.S. she being Executrix That the Devise of the personal Estate to the Plaintiff in Remainder was a void Devise and the said Estate to the Testator immediately thereupon did Attach and vest in the said Alice his Relict and Executrix and the Defendant as her Executor was and is well intituled thereto and decreed accordingly Bredhust contra Richardson 31 Car. 2 fo 695. THat Samuel Russell by his Will gave to his three Daughters Sarah Christian and Elizabeth 540 l. to be divided amongst them viz. For each of them in particular 180 l. but if any one or two of them 540 l. To be divided amongst three Daughters and if one or two dyes without Issue the Daughters to Inherit each other one Marries the Plaintiff and dyes Sans Issue the Plaintiff is intituled to the 180 l. as Administrator to his Wife should dye without leaving a Child that the Daughters should Inherit one anothers Goods Monies Lands and Chattels which the deceased should leave behind them and that the Plaintiff intermarried with the said Elizabeth and that she died without leaving a Child before payment of the said 180 l. The Plaintiff insists That he as Administrator to the said Elizabeh his Wife is intituled to the said 180 l. and her share of the said Goods The Defendant insists That by the words and true intent of the Testator and the said Will the same doth not belong to the Plaintiff but came or in Equity belongs to the Defendants as Surviving Sisters This Court declared the Plaintiff is well intituled to the said 180 l. and decreed accordingly Turner contra Turner 31 Car. 2. fo 102. THat the Plaintiffs Father lent to Ayloff 700 l. and 200 l. at another time for which Ayloff Mortgaged Lands to the Plaintiffs Father and his Heirs with proviso that on payment of 600 l. to the said Plaintiff Father or Heirs then the premisses to be reconveyed to Ayloff that the Plaintiff is Executor to his Father and Brothers and so claims the Mortgages as vesting in the Executors of his Father and not in his Heirs The Defendant being the Son and Heir of the Plaintiffs eldest Brother deceased and Grandson and Heir to the said Plaintiff's Father insists That the Plaintiff and Defendant and others who claimed several shares and parts of the Plaintiffs Fathers personal Estate agreed to a Division thereof amongst themselves and a Division was made and Releases given of each ones demands in Law or Equity to the said Estate and the Plaintiff in particular released and the said Ayloff's Mortgage with the Mony due thereon with other things was set out and allotted to the Defendant by consent of all the parties and received by the Defendant in part of his share and the Plaintiff accounted to the Defendant for the profits of the said Ayloffs Mortgaged premisses received by him and afterwards in 1664 the Defendant had a Decree for the Mortgage Mony against Ayloffs Executor and received the same to which proceedings the Plaintiff was privy and the Defendant says it is unreasonable that the Plaintiff should now make a demand to the said Mortgage to unsetle matters so setled by his own consent but the Plaintiff insists he looked on the premisses at that time to come to the Defendant as Heir and knew not his own Titile thereto and the shares set out came but to 250 l. apiece and Ayloffs Mortgage was worth 800 l. This Court is of Opinion The Heir is decreed to have a right to a Mortgage in Fee and not the Executor that the Plaintiff ought to be relieved and had an undoubted Right to the said Mortgaged premisses and decreed the Defendant to repay all the Mony received by him thereon to the Plaintiff Bois contra Marsh 31 Car. 2. Land Legatees and Mony Legatees decreed to abate in proportion notwithstanding an Agreement to the contrary fo 441. THis Court declared That all the Legatees both Land Legatees and Mony Legatees ought to abate in propotion notwithstanding the Agreement to the contrary and that the said Agreement be set aside Audley contra Dom ' Audley 31 Car. 2. fo 848. THe Bill is to set aside a Lease made by Sir Henry Audley the Plaintiffs Father Power to make Leases if well pursued to the Defendants as Trustees for the Defendant the Lady Audley for 99 years if Henry Francis and Ann Audley Children of Sir Henry by the Defendant the Lady Audley should so long live paying yearly so much Rent as amounts to two parts in three of the yearly Value of the said Houses according to the best improved Value But the Plaintiff insists The said Lease is not made pursuant to the power reserved to the said Henry by a Deed of Settlement made by one Packington in 4 Car. 1. in Consideration of a Marriage between the said Sir Henry and Ann one of the said Packingtons Daughters and Coheirs by which it was declared That the benefit of such power in the said Sir Henry to make Leases was to be for the younger Children of the said Sir Henry by the said Ann his first Wife and the said Lease was not well gained from Sir Henry The Defendant insisted it was made pursuant to the power which was That Sir Henry should have power to make Leases for a provision of any thing he should have or otherwise as he should direct Which Matter was referred to the Lord Chief Justice Hales who declared the power good and that Sir Henry had pursued that power The Plaintiff insisted That the Rent reserved is altogether uncertain and lies only in Averment and that if the Value averred by the Plaintiff should in the least be disproved the Plaintiff would be Nonsuited in any Action And so insisted That it was proper for this Court to fix and establish that for a standing Rent which can be made out to have been two parts of the best improved Value at the time of making the said Lease and that the Rent so to be ascertained the Defendant might Covenant for constant payment thereof This Court on perusal of the said Lease and power and of the Lord Hales Opinion declared the said Lease to be good and sufficient and that unless proof be made of a greater value than the Sum of 290 l. Two parts in three of the improved value reserved as a Rent by a power the constant payment of such a Sum at the time of making the said Lease decreed to be paid whether the premisses rise or fall which hath been constantly paid by the Defendant the Lady Audley and accepted of by the Plaintiff that the said Sum must be taken as two parts of the full value of the premisses at the time of making the said Lease which or the greater
by Will John Bassano taking notice of the aforesaid deed provides that in case Elizabeth his Wife were with Child of a Son then his Executors to pay to the Plaintiff Frances 300 l. but if a Daughter then he had otherwise provided for the Plaintiff Frances and such Daughter by deed and shortly after dyed leaving John Bassano his Son and Heir by a former Venter and shortly after the said Elizabeth the youngest Daughter was Born and died in a Month after and in 1666. Elizabeth the Mother dyed leaving the Plaintiff Frances whereupon John Bassano the younger took the Plaintiff Frances in Guardianship and having the said Will and Deed in his Custody pretended to her she had but 300 l. Portion left her by her Father That in 1669. the Plaintiff Tucker and the Plaintiff Frances inter-married and John Bassano still concealed the said Will and Deed that the Plaintiff Tucker and John Bassano the younger agreed that the 300 l. left to the Plaintiff Frances by her Father should be laid out on Security or Purchase for the benefit of the Plaintiff Frances for life in case she survived the Plaintiff Tucker and accordingly the Plaintiff Tucker Sealed a Deed 10th of December 1669. whereby the Plaintiff released the said 300 l. to the said Bassano the younger upon Trust and the said Bassano Covenants with the Plaintiff that he his Executors or Administrators should either continue the said 300 l. in his or their Hands at Interest or lay out and dispose of the same upon Security or Purchase and permit the Plaintiff Tucker during his life and the Plaintiff Frances during her life to receive the Interest and Benefit thereof and to the Plaintiff Tucker and his Heirs Executors c. That in 1671. Bassano the younger died and made the Defendant Searle his Executor and the said Searle refused to pay the said 300 l. pretending the want of Assets And the Plaintiff Tucker insists to have the said 300 l and interest to be chargeable out of the Walthamstow Lands in regard the said Lands were originally charged therewith but the Defendant the Executor says the said Lands are sold by him to one Woots and the Plaintiff Tucker insists that such Sale was without notice of the Plaintiffs Title and charge of the said 300 l. on the said Lands and that Woots had Collateral Security to secure him against the Plaintiff wherefore in regard the said Lands were Originally charged with 300 l. and the Plaintiffs were drawn in to accept of the said Covenant which is but a personal Security by the contrivance of Bassano the younger who kept the Plaintiff ignorant of the said Deed and Will for that the Plaintiffs Release is only upon Trust for payment of the said 300 l. the Plaintiffs do insist that in equity the said Lands ought still to be chargeable with the said 300 l. and interest and ought not to rely on the said Covenant The Defendant Searle insists that Bassano Junior by his Will devised the Walthamstow Lands to be Sold for payment of his Debts and Legacies which was Sold to Woots as aforesaid for 1260 l. and gave him Collateral Security by Bond of 1500 l. to secure him against the Plaintiffs demands and that the whole Personal Estate of the said Bassano Junior by Sale of Lands and otherwise fell short to pay the Plaintiffs demands the said Searle the Executor having paid Debts of a higher nature and say that the Plaintiff cannot have their whole demands but must come in proportion with other Creditors And the Defendant insists That the Walthamstow Lands ought not to be charged with the said 300 l. for that on a Bill in this Court exhibited by the Plaintiff against Bassano Senior whereby the Portions of the two Elizabeths Sisters of the Plaintiff Frances were demanded to be chargeable on Walthamstow Lands and alledged that Bassano Junior had secured the 300 l. being the Plaintiff Frances Portion by the said deed of Covenant and prayed to have the said two Elizabeth's Portions or the value of the Lands deducting the 300 l. secured to the Plaintiff Frances and in October 25. Car. 2. it was decreed that the Plaintiff should have the 300 l. which belonged to the youngest Elizabeth and the said Lands to be chargeable therewith But the Court then declared they could not decree the 300 l. claimed by the said Plaintiff Frances in her own right but that she must rely on the said Deed of Covenant Defect in a Bill for that they did not complain thereof by their Bill And the Defendant insists that the said decree being Signed and Inrolled the said 300 l. ought not to be charged on the said Lands but that they ought to rely on the said deed of Covenant they having thereby released the said Lands That the Defendant Searles cross Bill is for relief against a Bond of 600 l. on which he is Sued at Law and for Equity did insist Cross Bill for Creditors to take their proportionable shares but the debts having been paid to them and releases given dismist That he was Sued here by the Plaintiff Tucker and his Wife for the 300 l. aforesaid and that there was a decree against him in this Court at the Suit of one Whitton one of the Defendants to that Bill for 700 l. so that if the Plaintiff Tucker and other Creditors should recover their demands there will not be Assets and therefore prayed that the Plaintiff Tucker and Callwall might take their proportionable shares of what Assets was left but the Plaintiff Tucker insisted that the said 300 l. was originally charged on Walthamstow Lands by the said Marriage Settlement and was not discharged by the said Covenant or Release The said other Creditors Callwall c. insists That they have a Verdict against Searle the Executor for the Money due on the said Bond upon Evidence of Assets in Hands and had taken him in Execution and he had paid the said Money thereon and the said Creditors had released the said debts and therefore ought not to be farther troubled for the same This Court declared Lands originally charged with the payment of Portion and a release and covenant in Trust doth not discharge the same the said Walthamstow Lands were originally charged with the Plaintiffs 300 l. and that the said deed of Release and Covenant being made only in Trust for payment of the said Money and when the Plaintiffs were not told of the said Deed and Will did not discharge the same but the said Lands ought to make it good without damages although there were not Assets in the Executors Hands in regard the said Lands were sold under notice of the Plaintiffs demands and further declared he could not relieve the said Searle as against the said Callwall for that he by Coertion of Law had paid the Money recovered against him and the said Callwall had released the same to him and dismist Searles Bill Annand contra Honywood 32 Car. 2. fo
430. THe Bill is to have a discovery of the Estate of Bennony Honywood The Custom of London for Orphanage part the Plaintiff Sarahs Father whereby the Plaintiff Annand in right of his Wife might have an equal divident thereof according to the Custom of Lond. on the said Bennony Honywood being a Freeman of the said City who having only two Children the Plaintiff Sarah by his first Wife and the Defendant John by his second Wife he married the Plaintiff Sarah to one Brown in 1657 and gave her but a small matter at present saying That when he died she should come in for a customary part of his Estate and 9 years after the said Marriage made his Will in 1660. and thereby devised all his Personal Estate to be divided into three equal parts according to the Custom of London viz. one to his Wife and another between the Plaintiff Sarah and the Defendant her half Brother and thereby declared that what the Plaintiff Sarah had in Marriage with the said Brown should be accounted as part of her share of that third part and out of the other third part which he had power in himself to dispose of and thereby declared to be only reserved to himself he appointed his Executor which was his Wife and the now Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff Sarah for her support for her life and to be in no part of her Husband Browns Estate and 30 l. per Annum and 300 l. in Money That the Plaintiff Sarahs Husband died in 1670 and she in 1672. with the Testators consent Married the Plaintiff Annand and in 1678. the Testator died and the Testators Wife died before so the Plaintiff became intituled to a full Childs part and share of the Personal Estate being 10000 l. The Defendant insists That the Testator did on the Plaintiff Sarahs first Marriage give her a considerable Marriage portion in present and promised to leave her 200 l. more at his death which was to be her full advancement and did not intend she should come in for her customary share and insists That in 1675. the Testator made his last Will and thereby gave the Plaintiff Sarah a Legacy and Legacies to her Children reciting That he had already advanced her at her first Marriage and that he had then promised to leave her 200 l. more at his death and that the Legacies were given to the Plaintiff Sarah in full of all such share and claim as she might after his death have right to or claim in any of his Estate by virtue of the Custom of London or otherwise and insists That the Plaintiff by the said Advancement on her first Marriage her Father the Testator having not declared his Will or other Writing under his Hand that she was not fully Advanced but declared the contrary by the last Will she is thereby barred and excluded by the Custom of London from any other claim out of his Estate then what is bequeathed by the last Will being 500 l. which the Defendant will pay she giving a general Release which said last Will provides she shall do The Plaintiffs Councel insists That the said Declaration in the Will of 1666. was the Testators first Declaration of his intent upon the marriage of the said Sarah and that it was being still under his Hand in writing as sufficient and vallid as if it had been any other writing and that it was produced not as a Will but as an Evidence and is still a writing under the Testators Hand declaring That his first Wives Daughter the Plaintiff Sarah was by him but partly Advanced and that she was by the Custom of London to have an equal Childs part of his Personal Estate with his second Wives Son and then that he could never by a Subsequent Will oblige her to 500 l. Legacy in full of all that is due to her by the Custom of London without her consent and the words of the last Will by forbidding the Plaintiff Sarah to Sue for the Customary part of his Estate or upon the account of not being fully Advanced do strongly imply the intent at the marriage was that what his said Daughter had in marriage was but part of her Advancement The Defendants insist That by the Custom of London a Declaration to let in a Child for a Customary part ought to be by the Testators last Will or by some other writing under Hand remaining in force and unrevoked and that it ought to be an express Declaration which the Will in 1666. is not and the Testator declared by his last Will that the Plaintiff Sarah was already Advanced upon her first marriage and that the Testator promising to leave her 200 l. more at his death implies that it was agreed that she should have no more and the Will in 1666. is Revoked and Cancelled and the Testators hand remains only to the middle-most sheet thereof This Court declared they would be Certified by the Recorder of London whether a Declaration by a Will Revoked be such a Declaration in writing to let a Child have a Customary part of her Fathers Estate The Lord Mayor and Aldermen By the Custom of London a Declaration made by a Freeman by writing tho' such writing were made for his last Will and Revoked is such a Declaration as will let in his Child to have a Customary part of his Personal Estate by the Recorder Certified this Court That by the Custom of the said City a Declaration made by a Citizen and Freeman of the said City by writing with his Name or Mark Subscribed thereto though such writing were made for his last Will and Testament and the same afterwards by him Revoked is such a Declaration as will let in a Child of such a Freeman to have his or her Customary part of his or her Fathers Personal Estate The Defendant insists That the Lord Mayor c. were Surprized in making the Certificate they conceiving themselves streightned in the words and directions of the Order for that although the Will of 1666. had never been revoked yet the same had never been a sufficient Declaration according to the Custom to let in the Plaintiff to have a Customary part and they by the Order being restrained to certifie whether a revoked Will were a good Declaration they did apprehend they were to take it That the Testator had by his Will of 66. made a sufficient Declaration according to the Custom to let in the Plaintiff which he hath not done for the Custom of London in this case is That the Sum certain that any Child had in part of such Advancement ought to be expressed in such Writing or Declaration or else the same is not of any avail and produced Presidents for that purpose that the same ought to be mentioned to the end that in case such Child should be admitted to such Customary part it may be known what the Sum is to the end it may be brought into Hotch-potch with the rest
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 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
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
he died about six Weeks after to whom the Lady is Administratrix The Judges Opinion upon both these Cases WE have heard the Case of Massingberd and Ash Remainders of a Term successively in a Deed of Trust being limited and confined to fall within 21 years are good and no Perpetuities referred to us Argued by Council on both sides both upon the Deed of Trust and upon the Will and are all of Opinion That the whole weight of the Case rests upon the Deed of Trust and that the Will though it have some Clauses in it which if they were substantive of themselves would alter the case yet as it is penned and the Clauses all bound up with relation to the Deed of Trust it does not And we are likewise of Opinion That all the Remainders and Contingencies in the Deed of Trust being limited and confined to fall within the compass of 21 years are good and that therefore the remainder of the Term ought to be decreed to the Plaintiff Sir William Massingberd Febr. 17. 1684. Thomas Jones Creswell Levings J. Charlton T. Street The Lord Keeper declared himself of the same Opinion with the Judges That the Remainder of the said Terms after the death of the said Dame Elizabeth were good Remainders in Law and that the Plaintiff Sir William ought to enjoy the premisses for the remainder of the said Terms accordingly and decreed the same Nodes contra Batle 35 Car. 2. fo 106. THe Bill is That the Defendant may redeem or be fore closed and the Defendant being served with a Subpoena refuseth to appear and sits out all process of Contempt to a Serjeant at Arms retorned and cannot be apprehended The Plaintiff prays the Bill may be taken pro Confesso This Court declared In regard the Defendant hath not appeared The Bill not to be taken pro Confesso if the Defendant hath not appear'd but a Sequestration shall issue out against him this Court could not decree the Bill pro Confesso but ordered a Sequestration against his real and personal Estate until he cleared his Contempt Moor contra Hart 35 Car. 2. fo 60. THat a Treaty of Marriage was had between the Plaintiff and Ann his Wife Marriage Agreement the Defendants Daughter who promised to give with her 4000 l. but when the Defendant perceived them to be mutually ingaged began to recede from his Promise which the Plaintiff finding a Letter was wrote to the Defendant by a Friend of the Plaintiffs desiring him to be plain and ascertain what Portion he would give the Plaintiff with his Daughter and then the Defendant agreed to give 1500 l. down and 500 l. more at his death if she should have Issue and both Sums to be charged on his Estate at Creaton and Wapingham which Agreement was in Writing and signed by the Defendant and he did in Answer to the said former Letter express and declare as much under his Hand and thereupon the Marriage took effect But the Defendant pretended he never made any such Agreement and that the Plaintiff married his Daughter without his Consent but confesseth he received a Letter from one Reeve a Friend of the Plaintiffs wherein he desired the Defendant to be clear and say what he would lay down upon the Nail in marriage with his Daughter to the Plaintiff and what he would secure to be paid at his death and that he sent a Letter to Reeve in Answer wherein he acknowledg'd the Plaintiffs deserts exceeded his ability and with all plainness acquainted him he would give her 1500 l. in present out of his Estate at Creaton and 500 l. more at his death if she should have Issue then living but that afterwards Mr. Reeves sent a Letter in Answer to that whereby the Treaty and Proposals are absolutely waved and the Defendant never further Treated but the Marriage was had without his Consent and without any Agreement in Writing or Settlement and therefore he insists upon the Act for prevention of Frauds and Perjuries To which the Plaintiff insists The last Letter sent by Reeve was no manner of the Treaty or Proposal in the former Letters in Jan. 1680. This Court Letters under ones Hand shall amount to a good Agreement within the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries on reading the several Letters sent by Reeve to the Defendant in the behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendants Answer thereunto This Court is fully satisfied the Plaintiff upon his Marriage became well intituled to the 1500 l. agreed by the Defendant under his own Hand to be paid to the Plaintiff as his Wives Portion out of his Estate at Creaton and decreed accordingly Bradbury contra Ducem Bucks 36 Car. 2. fo 401. THis Court did declare Interest upon Interest decreed That the Plaintiffs ought to have Interest for their Interest Mony from time to time when it is a stated Sum. Dom ' Pawlet contra Dom ' Pawlet 36 Car. 2. fo 516. This is upon a Case stated viz. THat John Trust for payment of Debts Maintenance of younger Children and raising Portions late Lord Pawlet on Marriage with the Plaintiff the Lady Susanna his second Wife and of her Portion setled a Joynture of 1000 l. per Annum on her and afterwards having 3 Children viz. the Defendant the now Lord Pawlet and Susanna and Vere Pawlet by Deed conveyed Lands to Trustees and their Heirs viz. to the use of the said Lord Pawlet for life charged with Portions for his Daughters by the Lady Essex Pawlet his former Wife and after the death of the said Lord Pawlet to the use of Francis Pawlet and others for 500 years on Trust that they should after the commencement of the 500 years out of the Profits or by Leases or other lawful ways out of the premisses allow the now Defendant Maintenance and also sufficient to pay all the late Lord Pawlets debts and maintenance for the younger Children and after that to raise Mony to pay the younger Childrens Portions in such manner and time as the said Lord Pawlet should by any Writing or last Will appoint and in default of such limitation or appointment the Trustees to raise 4000 l. a piece for every younger Son and 4000 l. a piece for every Daughter of the said Lord Pawlet by the Lady Sasanna to be paid at their Ages or day of Marriages if such Portions could conveniently be raised and if not then so soon after as the same could be with this further That every younger Son and Daughter should have Maintenance till Portions paid and after all the said Sums raised the Remainder of the 500 years to be surrendred to whom the immediate Reversion belonged which is now the Defendant That the late Lord Pawlet by Will in 1677. and published at the same time when the said Deed was executed gave to his said two Daughters Susanna and Vere Pawlet 4000 l. for their respective Portions to be paid them as the said Deed directed and made the
Jane his Daughter for her life and after to John Colley her Son and Heir and his Issue Male and for want of such Issue in Trust for the Daughters of the said Jane and after the death of Jane and John Edward was intituled and he together with Sir John Wirley the Surviving Trustees upon Edwards marrying with the Plaintiff did Demise to the said Defendants the Trustees the Mannor-house c. for the Term of 20 years in Trust to pay certain Annuities therein mentioned and to permit Edward Colly for his life to receive the profits of the residue and in case the Marriage took effect and the Plaintiff Ann Survived him then to pay her 130 l. per Annum for her life and after Edwards death to permit the Heirs males of their two Bodies to receive the residue of the profits and for default of such Issue male there is provision for Daughters and supposes the residue of the profits may be limited to any Issue male of Edwards and for want of such Issue to permit the Defendant Jane and Ann since deceased Sister of the said Edward to receive the profits of the Estate as the Deed expresses and that he remembred no other Agreement than what is mentioned in the said Deed and sets forth the Deed of 21 Jan. 26 Car. 2. whereby the said Defendants the Trustees were intituled by Sale or Leases to pay debts and after payment thereof if the Plaintiff Ann should be then living should permit her to receive the residue of the profits for her life and afterher decease the right Heirs of Edward to receive the same that after the time of executing the last mentioned Deed the said Edward made his Will and after some Legacies took notice of the said Deed bearing date the day before and it was declared thereby that the Defendants the Trustees should out of the profits pay all his debts and being fearful those profits should not do did Devise to them all the rest of his personal Estate and made them Executors and after debts paid the residue to the Plaintiff Ann. That Nov. 1676 Edward Colley died after which the said Defendant proved the Will and entred on the Estate But the Defendants Ciber and Jane his Wife insisted That the said Defendant Jane being the only Sister and Heir to Edward Colley are after his debts intituled to the premisses for a long Term to commence after the death of the Plaintiff Ann and have sold their interest to the Defendant Benson Upon reading the said Deed and Will A Term in gross and not to be Entailed the Lord Keeper North was of opinion that the said Term so as aforesaid Created was a Term in gross and so not capable of being intailed and therefore it could not descend to the Heir of Edward Colley but that the same should be liable to the payment of his Debts and that the Plaintiff Ann should hold the 130 l. per An. for her life and after the said Debts paid the Plaintiff Ann should receive the profits of the whole Estate for her life charged with the said Annuity and the said Plaintiffs were to redeem the Mortgage to the Defendant Woodward But as to the Residue of the said Term after the death of the Plaintiff Ann and debts paid how the same should be disposed a Case was ordered to be made A Case being Stated this Cause came to be heard thereon before the Lord Chancellor Jefferies and all the former pleadings being opened as also the Defendant Cibers cross Bill which was to this effect viz. to have the said Term of 820. years to attend the Inheritance and the Case stated appearing to be no otherwise than before is set forth His Lordship on reading the said Deed and Will A Residue of a Term after debtspaid and a life determined Decreed not to the Residuary Legatee but to the Heir the Question being who shall have the remainder of the Term in the said Lease whether the Plaintiff Ann as Residuary Legatee or whether she shall have only an Estate for life his Lordship declared that the Deed and Will do make but one Will and by them there was no more intended to the Plaintiff Ann than an Estate for her life and that she ought to enjoy the whole Mansion House cum pertin ' during her life and also the overplus of the profits of the Residue of the said Estate after Debts and Legacies paid and the Defendant Benson who purchased the Inheritance of Ciber to enjoy the same discharging all things as aforesaid Hall contra Dench 36 Car. 2. fo 799. THat the Plaintiff Grace Hall Will. Revocation being Daughter of William Knight deceased who was Son of Susanna one of the Sisters and Coheirs of Thomas Bridger deceased which said Thomas Bridger being seized in Fee of Lands in Binstead and Middleton and having no Children made his Will in 1663. by which he gave to Tho. Knight Son of the said Willi. Knight all his Lands in Binstead to the said Thomas Knight and the Heirs of his Body and for want of such issue then to the Plaintiff Grace and the Heirs of her Body with Remainders over and by the same Will Devised one Moiety of the Lands in Middleton to the said Thomas Knight and the Heirs of his Body with the like Remainders over and sometimes after the said Will the said Thomas Bridger Mortgaged the said Lands in Binstead to John Comber and his Heirs for 500 l. and the said Bridger repaid the 500 l. and had the Mortgage delivered up and Cancelled but no Reconveyance of the Lands and that the said Comber after that was but a Trustee for Bridger the Mortgagee who in 1682. declared that the Will he made in 1663. should stand and be his last Will and then denied But the Defendant Dench having got the Cancelled Deed in his Custody and the Plaintiff brought an Ejectment under the Title of the Will and got a verdict for the Lands in Middleton but the Defendant at the Tryal setting up a Title in the Defendant Comber upon the Cancelled Mortgage for the Lands in Binstead a Verdict passed for the Defendant so to have the said Mortgage deed delivered up and the Plaintiff to enjoy the premisses according to the said Will is the Bill The Defendants as Co-heirs at Law to Bridger insist That the Testator Bridger never intended that the Estate should go as that Will directed in regard he soon after the said Will Mortgaged the same to Comber and besides the Legatees and Executors in the said Will were most of them dead before the said Bridger and the Mortgage money was not paid till after the Estate forfeited and that the Mortgage to Comber was an absolute Revocation of the said Will and upon an Ejectment brought by the Plaintiff under the said Will the Defendants obtained a Verdict for the Lands in Binstead wherein the validity of the said Will was in issue The Plaintiffs insist That the Verdict obtained
Kindid before distribution that share shall go to her or his Executors or Administrators and not to the Survivor next of Kindred to the first Intestate and before any actual distribution made vest an Interest in the respective persons appointed to have distribution of the surplus of his Estate as much as if it had been Bequeathed by Will and that if any one of them dye before distribution tho' within the year yet the part or share of such person so dying ought to go over to the Executors or Administrators of such party so dying and not to the Survivor or next of Kindred to the first Intestate and that the Lady Katherine was at her death well intituled to a share of her Brother Thomas Wentworths Estate as an Interest thereby vested in her notwithstanding she died within a year after the Intestate and before any distribution made and that the Lord Winchelsey as her Administrator is now well intituled therto and decreed a distribution and the Plaintiff the Lord Winchelsey shall have the Lady Katherines share and proportion of the said Thomas Wentworths Estate accordingly and the Plaintiff the Lady Elizabeth shall have a like share thereof with the Defendant Lister and John Wentworth 2 Jac. 2. so 315. The question being Whether the respective shares of the Plaintiff and Defendant Lister the said Lady Katherine and Elizabeth and the Defendant Lister being only of the half Blood to the Intestate and whether the Mony be vested in Lands or the Lands themselves should be accounted part of the personal Estate of the said Thomas Wentworth or not His Lordship ordered a Case to be made as to those two points The Case being viz That the said Thomas Wentworth died an Infant and unmarried leaving such Brother of the whole Blood and such Brother and Sisters of the half Blood as aforesaid who were his next of Kindred in equal degree and that upon his death a real Estate of near 2500 l. per Annum discended to the Defendant John Wentworth his Brother and Heir and that above 3000 l. of the profits of that Estate received in the Intestates life time by Dame Dorothy Norcliff and the said Trustees which belonged to him and his proper Monies were by them during his Non age and without any direction or power in their Trust but of their own Heads laid out in Purchases in Fee and Conveyances in their Names but in Trust for the said Intestates and his Heirs with this express Clause in the said Conveyances viz. in case-he at his full Age would accept the same at the Rate purchased the purchase being made with his Mony and for his advantage This Court as to the said two Points Half Blood to have an equal share with the whole Blood being assisted with Judges declared That the Plaintiff and the Defendant Lister ought each of them to have an equal share with the Defendant John Wentworth of the surplus of the personal Estate of the said Intestate and the distribution thereof ought to be made among them share and share alike and decreed accordingly And as to the other Point declared Trustees lay out the Monies of an Infant in Lands in Fee This shall be accounted part of his personal Estate he dying a Minor That the Monies laid out in the said Purchases ought to be taken and accounted for as part of the said personal Estate and distributed with the rest and decreed a Sale of the said purchased premisses and distribution thereof to be made as aforesaid Dom ' Middleton contra Middleton 1 Jac. 2. fo 793. THat Sir Thomas Middleton upon his Marriage with the Plaintiff Dame Charlotta Middleton Devise setled a great part of his Estate in Com' Flint and other Countries for her Joynture being seised in Fee of Lands in several Countries viz. Flint Denbigh and Merioneth and setled all his Estate on his first and other Sons on her Body in Tail Male and charged the same with several Terms of years for raising Portions for Daughters viz. If one Daughter and no Issue male 8000 l. and out of his personal Estate intending to make an addition to the Portion of the Plaintiff Charlotta his only Child and to increase the Plaintiff Dame Charlotta's Fortune and Joynture made his Will in 1678. and thereby reciting that whereas upon his Marriage-Settlement it was provided That if he should have a Daughter she was to have 6000 l. Portion as his Will was and he gave to his only Daughter Charlotta in case she should have no Son living at his death 10000 l. more as an addition to her Portion to make her up the same 16000 l. and for raising of the said portions and payment of his debts and Legacies he devised all his said Lands except his Lands limited for his Wives Joynture for her life unto Trustees and their Heirs in Trust to raise out of the Rents and profits of the said premisses the several Sums mentioned for his Daughters portion and the sums of Mony thereafter mentioned and Willed That till one half of the said Daughters portion should be raised his Daughter Charlotta to have 100 l. per Annum for the first four years and afterwards 200 l. per Annum till her moiety of her portion should be raised and after payment of the said portions maintenance debts and legacies he devised the said Trustees to stand seised of all the said premisses except before excepted to the use of the Heirs males of his Body with a Remainder to the Defendant Sir Richard Middleton his Brother for life without impeachment of Waste Remainder to his first Son and Heirs males of his Body with other Remainder to the Defendants Thomas Richard and Charles Middleton Remainder to the right Heirs of the said Thomas and he bequeathed to his said Daughter Charlotta the Plaintiff his Diamond-pendants which his Wife wore and bequeathed to his Wife Dame Charlotta after his death one Annuity of 200 l. per Annum for her life to be raised out of the profits of the said premisses and bequeathed the great Silver Candlesticks to go according to his Grandmothers Will to the Heirs of his Family with his Estate as an Heir Loom and bequeathed the use of all his Goods Stock and Housholdstuff to his Wife the Plaintiff Dame Charlotta for so long as she should live at Chirke Castle and from thence he left the same to his eldest Son and Heirs or such as should be Heir male of his Family according to the limitations aforesaid and his further Will was that his said Wife should have such proportion of the Goods Housholdstuff and Stock for the stocking and furnishing of Cardigan-House and Demean being part of her Joynture as should be judged fit by her Trustees that she might be supplied with Goods and Stock requisite for her House and left to whomsoever should be his Heir all his Stable of Horses and made the Plaintiff Dame Charlotta Executrix and died in 1683. leaving the
not to be shaken yet nevertheless the Case being new and great referred it to the Opinion and Determination of the Lord Chancellor His Lordship held the Demurrer good and Order to stand Skinner contra Kilby 2 Jac. 2. fo 72. THe Bill is to have the benefit of a Bequest by the Will of Robert Kilby The Will being viz. Will. If my Son Richard Kilby should behave himself towardly and undertake the payment of my debts and Legacies then he to have all my Lands in Tredington The Son Devisee of Lands upon good behaviour for his mis-behaviour decreedagainst him if he behave himself otherwise or to neglect to pay my debts and Legacies as aforesaid then he to have but 5 s. and left it to the direction of his Executrix Jane Kilby the Defendants Mother and also Mother of the said Richard Kilby the Plaintiffs Father That the said Richard waving the said Devise made to him and neglecting the payment of his said Fathers debts and Legacies the said Jane undertok and paid the same being intituled by the said Will and by her Will Bequeathed to the said Defendant the premisses This Court upon reading the said Will of Robert Kilby the Testator which being as is aforesaid declared that according to the said Will the said Jane was well intituled to the premisses and that the Defendant ought to enjoy the same and could not relieve the Plaintiff but dismiss the Bill Nayler contra Strode 2 Jac. 2. fo 473. THe Surrender of a Copyhold Estate by an Infant of 4 or 5 years of Age allowed of by this Court Surrender of a Copyhold by an Infant of 5 years of Age. Yet the Lord of the Mannor insisted he never heard of any admittance in that Mannor at such an Age. Cloberry contra Lymonds 2 Jac. 2. fo 1069. LAnds extended in 1 Car. 1. and held in Extent and a Bill exhibited to redeem and being not redeemed the Bill dismist in 16 Car. Upon the buying the Equity of Redemption of Lands in Extent Account decreed from the time of the purchase 1. and afterwards he who had the Extent by virtue of the said dismission sold the said premisses to the Defendant But the Plaintiff having since bought the Equity of Redemption seeks a Redemption This Court notwithstanding the dismission and length of time ordered an account from the time of the Purchase but no account from any time before but the profits to go against the Interest to that time Newte contra Foot 2 Jac. 2. fo 695. THe Defendant insists Depositions suppressed because the Sollicitors Clerk in the Cause did write as a Clerk in the Execution of the Commission That the Depositions in this Cause are irregulerly taken and ought to be suppressed for that Mr. Samuel Vnderwood who was Clerk to Mr. Edward Gibbon Sollicitor for the Plaintiff in this Cause did write as Clerk in Execution of the said Commission under the said Commissioners and the said Vnderwood confessed the same and solicited the Matter for which Reasons the Defendants Commissioners refused to joyn in the Execution of the said Commission it being of great mischief for Solicitors or their Clerks to be privy to the taking of Depositions in such Causes as they Solicite This Court was well satisfied that the said Depositions were for the Reasons aforesaid irregularly taken and doth order that the same be hereby suppressed and that the Six Clerks Certificate for the regular taking of the Depositions be discharged Griffith al' contra Jones al' 2 Jac. 2. fo 353. THat Peter Griffith being seised in Fee of Lands Will. and possest of a personal Estate of 20000 l. in 1681. by his Will devised to his Brother the Plaintiff 200 l. to the Plaintiff Shonnet Price and Dorothy Parry the Daughters of his Sister Shonnet 150 l. apeice c. and to the Sons and Daughters of his Brother and Sisters not mentioned by name in his Will 10000 l. equally between them which said Legacy doth belong to the Plaintiffs John Lloyd and Alice Williams being the only Nephew and Neece not named in the Will and the overplus of his Estate he obliged the Executors should pay and and distribute amongst his Brothers and Sisters Children and Grandchildren and the rest of his poor Kindred according to his Executors discretions and the Plaintiff claims the overplus of the said Estate as being all the Brothers and Sisters Children and Grandchildren of the Testator and poor Kindred that can take by the Will The Defendants the Executors insisted That they conceive the distributing and apportioning the said surplus is left to them by the express words of the Will and that they ought to distinguish the Grandchildren of the Testators Brothers and Sisters whose Fathers and Mothers were dead before the Testator and had no particular Legacies by the Will and consider the Condition and number of Children of the said Kindred and give most to those that most want and conceived that such of the Plaintiffs as have particular Legacies ought to have but a small one if any part of the surplus and the Defendants crave the directions of this Court how far the words Poor Kindred shall Extend to what Degree of Relation This Court decreed Legacies to Poor Kindred how far to be extended That the surplus of the said Estate be distributed to and amongst the Testators Brothers and Sisters Children and Grandchildren and as to the rest of the poor Kindred according to the Act of Parliament for distributing Intestates Estates and no further and to be distributed in such shares and propotions as the Executors in their discretions should think fit and whereas there are debts owing to the Testators Estate and the debtors poor but propose to pay as far as they are able This Court decreed Poor Debtors to the Testator who left a great Estate the Executors left at liberty to compound any debt That the Executors be at liberty to compound any debt owing to the said Estate if they should think fit Creditors on Judgments and Bonds decreed Creditors on Judgment and Bonds decreed to redeem Mortgages to redeem Mortgages towards satisfaction of their debts fo 843. Bernry contra Pitt 2 Jac. 2. fo 373. THe Bill is That the Plaintiffs Father being only Tenant for life of a real Estate which after his death would come to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiffs Father allowing the Plaintiff but a small subsistance and the Plaintiff borrowed of the Defendant 1000 l. in 1675 and entred into Judgment of 5000 l. Defezanced for the payment of 2500 l. after the Plaintiffs Fathers death which hapned in 1679. The Defendant insists That he lent the Plaintiff 1000 l for which the Plaintiff gave Bond and Warrant of Attorny to confess Judgment to the Defendant of 5000 l. which was Defezanced that in case the Plaintiff should out-live his Father and in one Month after his Fathers death pay the Defendant 2500 l. and if the Plaintiff
to the uses of the Articles To which the Defendant pleaded and demurred insisting the same was obtained on good Grounds and Reasons and farther insisted that since the said Dismission and before the Bill of Review the said Lamb had paid the said 1500 l. with other money unto the Defendant Atwood in Right of the said Ann his Wife who was Administratrix to Richard Kettleby and Ann the Daughter and that in consideration thereof the said Defendant Atwood had made a Settlement equivalent thereto for a Joynture for his said Wife and the Issue Male of their two Bodies with a provision for Daughters and that they had a Son then living and prayed the Judgment of this Court therein Which Plea and Demurrer was argued before the Lord Chancellor Jefferies which his Lordship over ruled and Ordered the Defendant to answer and he would hear the Cause ab origine at which hearing the Defendant Atwood and his Wife insisted That the Plaintiffs demand being only a Remote Remainder in Fee as Right Heir of the Husband was not so valuable in Interest as for a Court of Equity to Decree a purchase to be made for the Sale thereof and to take the money from the Wife and Administratrix to make that purchase when she ought to return the same as Assets or howsoever 1500 l. of the money was her own Portion and belongs to her by her Election within six Months and though according to the strict Letter of the Articles her Husband Richard Kettleby could not be said to die leaving no Issue because he had a Daughter living at the time of his death yet the Daughter dying within the six Months allotted for the Wives Election in case he had died leaving no Issue there was great equity to extend the Construction of that Clause of the Articles so far as to give her back her own 1500 l. portion The Plaintiff insisted That such Remainders in Fee have been considered by this Court and purchases decreed to be made and limited to such Right Heirs and that the 2000 l. in this Case cannot be Assets and in like Cases had been so adjudged at Common Law and in this Case the Articles have expresly provided that the money should go as the Land ought to have gone as if a purchase had been made therewith and as for the pretence of the said Defendant Anns electing 1500 l. her power of electing did never arise nor can her power be enlarged by this Court beyond the express words of the Articles nor is there reason for it in this case in regard the Articles provided that she shall have a Dower besides and the said Ann by virtue of her two Administrations hath a great personal Estate besides the 2000 l. in question This Court declared That the 2000 l. Money to be laid out in Land shall be apapplied as the Land should have been had it been purchased must go as the Lands ought to have gone in case a purchase had been made and yet the Wife had no power to elect 1500 l. part thereof because her Husband died leaving Issue and so her power of election never arose nor did any Circumstances appear to his Lordship in this Cause to induce him to inlarge the Construction of the Articles touching such power of electing beyond the express words thereof and decreed the said dismission to be reversed and that the Defendant Atwood and Ann his Wife do lay out the 2000 l. for purchasing Lands in possession in Fee simple to be setled according to the intent of the Articles And as for the Defendants the Trustees Trustees indempnified in regard they relyed upon the said dismission Signed and Inrolled for their indempnity in paying the said 2000 l. to the said Atwood at his Wife they are indempnified thereby Paggett contra Pagget 3 Jac. 2. fo 2. A Deed of Revocation Blanks filled up after the Sealing and Execution of a Deed yet good and a new Settlement made by that Deed tho' after the sealing and execution of the said Deed Blanks were filled up in the said Deed and the said Deed not read again to the party nor resealed and executed yet held a good Deed. Smith contra Fisher 3 Jac. 2. fo 641. THat Susan Beale by her Will in writing after several Legacies thereby given Money deviled to one for life with Limitations over good gave all the rest and residue of her Estate unbequeathed which consisted mostly in ready money to be put forth to Interest by her Executors and one half of the Interest to be paid to the Plaintiff Ann Cole her Sister during her life and the other half of the Interest unto the Plaintiff Ann Smith Daughter of the said Ann Cole and after her Mothers decease to have all the Interest during her life and if the said Ann Smith died without Issue of her Body then the principal of the Residue should be equally divided between the Defendants Mary Cleever and Elizabeth Farmer The Question is whether the devise over to the Defendant Clever and Farmer as aforesaid was a good devise This Court declared that the said Will was a good Will as to the limitations over to the Defendant Clever and Farmer and decreed the Executors to account accordingly Com' Dorsett contra Powle 3 Jac. 2. fo 148. 599. THis Case is Separate Maintenance where by the Deeds and Agreement before Marriage the Countess of Dorset had an absolute power to dispose of all the Personal Estate she had at the time of her Marriage with the Defendant and the proceed thereof and had by her Will and otherwise well disposed of and appointed the same to the Plaintiff and this Court Ordered the Defendant to confirm the same but as to the Rents and Profits of the Real Estate upon consideration of the several Clauses of the Deed relating to the said Estate and different penning of the same from the other Deeds that concerned the aforesaid personal Estate his Lordship declared that the said Countess had no power to dispose of the same By Indenture Tripertite Dated 28th of June 31 Car. 2. made between the Defendant Mr. Powle of the first part Sir Thomas Littleton and Charles Brett Esquire of the second part and the Countess of Dorsett on the third part reciting That the said Countess was seized in Fee of several Manor Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in England and reciting there was a Marriage intended between Mr. Powle and the Countess it was agreed that if the Marriage took effect the Countess should during the Coverture receive and dispose to her own use and at her own Will and Pleasure of all the Right and Title she had or claimed in the said Manour Lands and Premisses or in any other Manours or Lands of the Countess in England and of all the Rents and Profits thereof so as Mr. Powle his Executors Administrators and Assigns were not to intermeddle nor have any Benefit or Advantage thereby in Law or Equity but