years Did by Deed in 1639. in consideration of a Marriage with Elizabeth his then Wife and for that she had parted with her Interest in Goods Consideration c. which by Agreement she had the Disposition of for her own use and other Consideration herein mentioned did Assign over the said Premisses and all his Term therein Lease Assigned in Trust for a Joynture and after for Children to Rumbald Jacobson and Abrah Beard on Trust that the said Eliz. should have the profits during Life and after to James Paul Jane and Mary her Children or such of them as the said Elizabeth should appoint by her Will and for want of such Appointment to the said James Paul Jane and Mary or so many of them as should be living at her decease share and share alike and after Elizabeth dyed Paul the Son being dead in her Lifetime Afterwards by deed in 1643. in consideration of a Marriage between the said Philip Jacobson and Frances Earnely and for a Joynture for the said Frances and for Provision for such Children as he should have by her the said Philip Jacobson and James his Son Assigned over the said Premisses for the remainder of the said Term of 60 years and all his Goods and Houshold stuff unto William Daniel and Alexander Staples their Executors c. on Trust Trust to permit the said Frances and Philip and such Children as they should have between them to receive the profits during the said Term and after the decease of him and his said Wife without Issue then on Trust as to part to suffer the Executors of the said Frances and as to the residue the said James Jacobson his Executors c. to receive the profits during the Term afterwards by deed in 1646. Reciting all Assignments and Indentures aforesaid he the said Philip Jacobson Assigned over the said Premisses and his Term therein to Alexander Staples and Jeffery Daniel their Executors c. on Trust as to the said Frances Jacobson for the Premisses limited to her by her first Joynture and as to several other parcels of Land named as in the said Deed is recited which said last premisses contain 132 Acres which are in Trust for the said James Jacobson from the death of his Father during the residue of the Term and in case the said James should remain unmarryed or being Marryed and should dye without Issue and his Wife being a Widow then the Rents and Profits thereof to remain and be to his younger Brother and Sister Lelease of Trusts and afterwards James and Thomas Earneley Son in Law of the said Philip having Marryed Jane one of the Daughters of the said Philip did 22 Car. 1. Release to Staples and Daniel and to the said Phillip and Joanna Jacobson vid. Executrix of Rombold Jacobson who Survived Beard all and all manner of Trusts and demands whatsoever and Suits in Law or Equity which they or either of them their Executors c. had from the beginning of the World unto the date thereof in all the Lands and Tenements with the Appurtenances then or theretofore in the tenure of Philip Jacobson aforesaid in the County of Wilts and by another Release in Jan. 1647. the said James and Thomas Earneley Released unto the said Philip Jacobson and Joanna Jacobson all manner of Trusts and demands whatsoever in all Lands in the County of Wilts as in the former Release and afterwards by deed in 1653. reciting that there was a Marriage then shortly to be had between the said James Jacobson Son and Heir of Philip Jacobson and one Margaret Still the said Philip did Assign over unto John Still and Nicholas Still their Executor c. the said 123 Acres for the Residue of the Term to the use of James and Margaret for their Lives and after their Deceases to the right Heirs of the said James begotten of Margaret and if Margaret should Survive James and have no Child by him and he dye before the end of the Term then she should have power to sell 51 Acres of the premisses and the Residue to the Executors of Philip and if Margaret dye in the life-time of James not having any Issue of her Body by him begotten then living then to the use of the said James Jacobson his Executors Administrators and Assigns for the residue of the Term which Marriage took effect and Margaret dyed without Issue in the Lifetime of James after whose Decease the said James being in possession by Deed in 1661. for 400 l. Mortgaged the 123 Acres to Elizabeth Brinley and yet enjoyed the 123 Acres till he dyed and the said Elizabeth Assigned over the said Mortgage which now by mean Assignments is come to the Plaintiff and James is dead without Issue or Brother and the Defendants Zenobia Frances and Rachell do him Survive This Court was fully satisfied that the Deed in 1653. Voluntary conveyance by which the said James derived his Title and afterwards made the said Mortgage under which the Plaintiff claims Remainder after a Limitation of a Term to an Issue Male void in Law was a good Conveyance and well executed in James and that the Conveyance in 1646. was a voluntary Conveyance and the Estate thereby claimed by the Defendants created being an Estate in remainder after a Limitation of a Term for years to an issue in Tail was void in Law and Decreed the Plaintiff to the possession of the 123 Acres or the Mony due on the Mortgage and to enjoy against all the Defendants and Decreed that the Plaintiff and Defendant Hopkins who is Administrator of the Mortgager James Jacobson to come to an account Oliver contra Leman al' 29 Car 2. fo 102. A Trial at Law is directed to the Plaintiff to try his Right to a Reversion of Lands after the Death of the Defendant Wainwright so the Plaintiffs desire what time they think fit to try the same A Tryal at Law directed to be within a precise time but the Defendant insists that the Plaintiff ought to be confined to a convenient time which was prayed might be the Rule in this Case and that the Defendant might not be kept in suspence and to wait on the Plaintiffs Convenience when he shall think fit to try the same This Court ordered it to be Tryed in Easter Term next or the Issue be taken pro confesso Stawell contra Austin 29 Car. 2. fo 579. THat George Stawell Father of Vrsula and Elizabeth Stawell being seized in Fee of Lands Construction of a Will by Deed and Recovery thereon setled all the said Lands on the Defendant Sir John and Robert Austin and their Heirs to the said George for Life remainder for such Estates and Charges as he by Will or other writing should appoint remainder to the Heirs Males of his Body with remainders over and by Will persueant to the power reserved by the said Deed devised the premisses setled by the said Deed to the said 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
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
Mudghill as well as the other Lands and made other particular provisions further which shews he did not intend that for her for if he had he would not have Revoked the former Trusts as to that by which she would have been intituled as Heir especially when he hath devised all the Surplus of his Estate which involves Mudghill as well as the rest amongst his own three Daughters and her equally nor doth it any where appear that Mudghill is in any sort exempted from Satisfaction of the Creditors nor could it so be by the said deed made by Sir Olando Bridgman who best knew the intention of all Parties in this matter But the Plaintiffs insisted That the said Duke could not intend Mudghill should be conveyed to the uses declared in the Will for that the same is to be conveyed to the said Lord John and the Heirs Males of his Body which is an Estate of Inheritance and he had power by a common Recovery to have bound the remainder and the reversion after the Estate tale is not Assets in Law and therefore cannot be conceived for the payment of his debts and the rather for that he recites deeds in 1652. and April 1654. and directs the Trustees therein to convey all his Lands and Mannours in those deeds to his Dutchess and others as to the Mannour of Mudghill as before he declared by his Will and as to all the rest of the Mannours he declared for the payment of his Debts so that all the rest excludes the Mannours of Mudghill and upon the whole Will it doth appear the Duke intended no Reversion should pass but Reversions after Estates for life or years and therefore this Reversion of Mudghill which is after an Estate Tail doth not pass and if it had been intended to pass he would have limited it to the said Lord John for life without remainder to his first or other Sons in Tail for he had before given him a better Estate in Mudghill to him and the Heirs of his Body and the Trustees were not to settle Mudghill accordingly until the same fell in possession the same being yet for Pleydalls life This Court on reading the several Deeds and Will declared That although the Lord John might possibly have an Estate Tail in him and doct it but he not doing it this Court can take no notice of it though probably he did forbear to do it because Duke William had Signified his desire Reversion after an Estate in Tail subject to Trusts for payment of debts that he should not have an Estate executed to him till it should fall in possession and not before except the Trustees pleased But the case must be taken as it doth appear before the Court that is Mudghill was once liable to the payment of the Debts of Duke William and tho' 't is pretended that the Will hath taken out Mudghill yet the said Will doth only take out an Estate Tail but the Revesion thereof when the same falls in possession is subject to the same Trust and goes in company with the other Reversions and the same is legally conveyed and doth pass in the general words and therefore this Court is of Opinion that the Reversion of Mudghill is part of the unrevoked Estate and that the Lord Bridgman did well when he made the said Conveyance to the Lady Dutchess and that when the 19100. l. and the said other debts are paid to which Mudghill is as well liable as the other Mannours and Lands then the Trustees ought to convey all the premisses in Fourths and decreed accordingly Maddocks contra Wren 32 Car. 2. fo 22. THe question in this Cause is Mortgage Account with what profits the Defendant Wren shall be charged in ease of the Plaintiff who claims the premisses in question by virtue of a second Mortgage and is admitted to a Redemption on payment of what shall appear due to the Defendant Wren who hath the prior Mortgage The Plaintiff insists That the said Mortgage being of a Lease and the Defendant Wren having possession by Attornment of Tenants he ought to have received the profits whereby his Mortgage would have been fully satisfied yet he permitted the other Plaintiff Dorothy Wife of the Plaintiff Maddox the Mortgager to receive the same and therefore the said Wren ought to be charged whereby the Plaintiff may be let in to have Satisfaction of his Debt This Court declared The prior Mortgagee upon Redemption by the second Mortgagee shall be charged with the profits by whom soever Received after the Second Mortgage That the Defendant Wren ought to be charged with the Rent whether received by the Wife or any other Person after the Plaintiffs second Mortgage made but all received by her before the said second Mortgage he ought not to be charged Coles contra Hancock 32 Car. 2. fo 112. THat Benjamin Coles the 11th of June Revocation of a Will 1678. made his Will in writing and thereby gave to and amongst his then Children naming them viz. Benjamin Samuel Mary and Hannah Portions and appointed his Real Estate to be Sold and added to his Personal Estate and made Elizabeth his Wife his Executrix and the Testator being a Melancholy Person and fearing he might forfeit his Estate by making himself away to prevent a forfeiture by deed the 14 of June 1678. made over all his Personal Estate to Trustees first to pay his debts then to pay some Legacies and all the rest of his Estate to be divided amongst the aforesaid four Children That the Testator afterwards died a natural death but before his death had another Child viz. Sarah who is not provided for either by the said Will or Deed. The question is whether the said Will be Revoked by the said Deed of Trust that if it be Revoked then the said Sarah insists to have her share of her Fathers Estate and that he ought to be looked upon as dying Intestate and at least the Personal Estate ought to be distributed by the Act for distributing Intestates Estates and the deed ought not to stand in her way for that great part of the Estate did consist in debts which were made after the said deed and did not pass to or was vested in the said Trustees and that it is against Natural Right and Conscience that her Father leaving a considerable Estate she should have nothing of it This Court on reading the said Deed and Will is of opinion A Deed of Trust no Revocation of a Will that the said deed of Trust is no Revocation of the said Will being not made with intent to revoke the same but only to prevent the forfeiture in a case which never hapned and Decreed the same to be set aside and the Personal Estate to be distributed according to the Will and the remainder to be divided amongst the four Children Benjamin Samuel Mary and Hannah Estate Devised to be sold for increase of his Childrens Portions and a Child
Joynt Creditors That there can be no division of the Joynt Estate whereby to charge any part thereof with the private debts of either party and till the Joynt debts are paid and till division be made of the Surplus both parties are alike interessed and every part of the said Joynt Estate that the Commissioners have no power by the Commission to Administer an Oath to the Plaintiffs for proof of their debts they claiming debts from the said Widdows only and the Commission is against Widdows and Berman Joyntly and not severally and therefore cannot admit of the Plaintiffs Creditors This Court declared That the Estate belonging to the Joynt Trade as also the debts due from the same ought to be divided into Moieties and that each Moiety of the Estate ought to be charged in the first place with a Moiety of the said Joint debts and if there be enough to pay all the debts belonging to the Joynt Trade with an Overplus then such Overplus ought to be applied to pay particular debts of each Partner but if sufficient shall not appear to pay all the Joynt debts and if either of the Partners shall pay more than a Moiety of the Joynt debts then such Partner is to come in before the said Commissioners and be admitted as a Creditor for what he shall so pay over and above his Moiety and decreed accordingly Charles Howard contra le Duke de Norfolk al' 34 Car. 2. fo 722. THe Plaintiff by his Bill seeks to have Execution of a Trust of a Term of 200 years of the Barony of Grostock The Case was this The Earl of Arundel the Duke of Norfolks Father by Lease and Release Perpetuities or Entailing a Term for years with Remainders over Anno 1647. setled the Barony of G. and other Lands to himself for life then to the Countess Elizabeth his Wife for life and after her decease there is a Term limited to the Lord Dorchester and other Trustees for 200 years under a Trust to be declared in a deed of the same date with the Release and the Limitation of the Inheritance after the Term of 200 years is first to Henry Howard now Duke of Norfolk and the Heirs Males of his Body then to Mr. Charles Howard the now Plaintiff Brother of the said Henry and so to all his Brothers Successively in Tail Male remainder over Then by the said other Deed the Earl declares the Trust of the Term of 200 years and that deed in the reciting part declares that it was intended the said Term should attend the Inheritance and the profits should go to such persons and in such manner as was therein after limited viz. to Henry Howard now Duke of Norfolk and the Heirs Males of his Body so long as Lord Thomas Lord Maltrevers Eldest Son of the said Earl of Arundell or any Issue Male of his Body should be living but in case he should die without Issue Male in the life-time of Henry Howard not leaving his Wife enseint with a Son or in case after the death of Thomas without Issue Male the Honour of the Earldom of Arundel should descend to Henry Howard then Henry Howard and his Heirs to be excluded of the Trust and then it should be to Charles the Plaintiff and the Heirs Males of his Body remainder in like manner to other Brothers After this the Contingency doth happen for Thomas Duke of Norfolk dies without Issue and the Earldom of Arundel as well as the Dukedom of Norfolk descended to Henry now Duke of Norfolk by Thomas his death without Issue presently upon this the Marquess of Dorchester the Surviving Trustee Assigns the Term to one Marriott he Assigns it to the now Duke of Norfolk and the Duke suffers a Recovery to the use of him and his Heirs and the Plaintiffs Bill is to have execution of the Trust of this Term to the use of himself and his Heirs Males of his Body The Defendants insist That by the Assignment by Marriott to my Lord Duke Henry the Term was Surrendred and quite gone that the Common Recovery which barred the remainders which the other Brothers had would also be a Bar to the Trust of this Term and that the trust of a Term to Henry and the Heirs Males of his Body until by the death of Thomas without Issue the Earldom should descend upon him and after that to Charles and the Heirs Males of his Body was a void Limitation of the remainder to Charles The Plaintiff insists Though the Term by the Survivor is gone and Merged in the Inheritance yet the Trust of that Term remains in Equity That this is not a Term that attends the Inheritance but it s a Term in gross and so not barred by the Recovery and that the Limitation of the remainder in Contingency is good in Law and Relief ought to be had in this Court The Lord Chancellor Nottingham the Case being of great Consequence calls the Judges to his Assistance viz. the Lord Chief Justice Pemberton the Lord Chief Justice North and the Lord Chief Baron Mountague and they made one single point in the case Whether this Contingent Trust of a Term limited to the Plaintiff Charles and the Heirs of his Body upon the dying of Thomas without Issue Male whereby the Honour did descend to Henry be good in point of Creation and Limitation for as for the Recovery if this be not a good Limitation in point of Creation the Recovery will do nothing so that supposeth it to go along with the Inheritance and if this take effect then it will suffer no prejudice by the Recovery And as for the Assignment by Marriott to the Duke if this Court decree it for the Plaintiff then it is a Breach of Trust and then he must answer for it and so must the Duke for it is a Surrender to a person who had notice of the Trust If for the Defendant then it is of no weight So that the whole rests upon the first single point viz. whether it be a good Limitation upon the Contingency to Charles or as they call it Springing Trust a springing Trust And the said three Judges were all of Opinion that it was a void Limitation and that it ought to be Decreed for the Defendant They said Term in gross and a Term attending the Inheritance the difference there is great difference as to the Limitation of Terms that are in gross and Terms that attend the Inheritance as to Terms in Gross they are not capable of Limitation to one after the death of another without Issue but in Termsattendant upon an Inheritance there may be such a Limitation if the Inheritance be so limited and not else Now the Term is capable of a Limitation to Henry and the Heirs Males of his Body and for want of such Issue to Charles and the Heirs Males of his Body because it hath an Inheritance to support it But now to put another limitation upon it that upon the 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
the Plaintiff and the Heirs Males of his Body That Thomas the Plaintiffs Father died leaving Issue Male only Earl William and the Plaintiff and Earl William is dead leaving Issue Male only the last Earl Thomas the Plaintiffs Nephew and the said last Earl Thomas upon his marriage with his now Wife levied a Fine and suffered a Recovery but not with intent to defear the Remainder to the Plaintiff but only to settle a Joynture and several Deeds were executed leading the Uses by which there was a Remainder in Fee reserved for the Plaintiff for want of Issue Male of the last Earl Thomas and the said last Earl Thomas to the intent the Reversion of the premisses should come to the Plaintiff and the Heirs Males of his Body did for 300 l. convey the said premisses to the use of the last Earl Thomas for life and in case of failure of Issue male of his Body to the Plaintiff and the Heirs males of his Body with Remainders over That Earl Thomas the Plaintiffs Nephew coming over into England and getting acquaintance with the Defendant Muschampe and being in want of Mony the said Muschampe lent him 100 l. and for Security he prest the said Earl to make it out of his Estate in Ireland and the said Defendant having the drawing the Security brought the said Earl some Writings ready to be executed of which the said Earl had no Copies or Counterparts neither did he give time to peruse the same and the said Earl relying on the Defendants Integrity Sealed the same believing the said Security to be void on payment of the said 100 l. as the Defendant affirmed it should but the said Deeds being made to settle on the Defendant a Rent charge of 300 l. per Ann. to his own use which being done by Fraud there ought to arise a Trust which ought to go and be enjoyed by the Plaintiff according to the aforesaid Settlement made on the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is willing to pay the Defendant whatsoever Sum of Mony he hath really lent or paid to the said last Earl Thomas with Interest The Defendant insists That the said last Earl Thomas by Deed in 1675. for 300 l. per Annum and other Considerations granted to the Defendant a Rent-charge of 300 l. per Annum without any deduction to be issuing out of the Estate in Ireland to be held by the Defendant and his Heirs and to commence at such of the Feasts as should first happen after the death of the said last Earl of Arglas without Issue male with power to distrain and a Proviso That if the said last Earl should during his life time have or at his death leave Issue male which do attain to the Age of 21 then the said Grant to be void and of the said 300 l. there was at one entire payment 180 l. paid to the said last Earl and the Defendant hath a Receipt for the said 300 l. and says the Deed was fairly executed and made without any fraud or practice and insists That the said Grant of a Rent-charge was on a Contingency so uncertain that 300 l. was a sufficient Consideration for the said Grant which 300 l. was paid thus viz. 100 l. after the Agreement and before the Conveyance of the said Rent charge and 184 l. to the said Earl the same day the Conveyance was executed and the said Mony was paid as Purchase-mony and not as Mony lent and the said Earl approved of the said Conveyance though he had no Copy and after the said Defendants purchase of the Rent-charge and since the exhibiting of this Bill the said Earl Thomas hath given the Defendant a general Release under Hand and Seal wherein is declared that the Bill is exhibited against the Defendant contrary to the said Earls direction and disallowed all further proceedings thereon against the Defendant This Court upon reading the said deeds and several presidents in this Court as well in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth King James King Charles the first as in his now Majesties Reign where relief hath been given against Over reaching Bargains and Contracts made by young Heirs and taking into consideration the Circumstances of this Case it appeared to him That Thomas Earl of Arglas at the time of this bargain was very young and of an easie nature and had forsaken his Wife and Friends and came to London where he lived in Riot and Debauchery and for the supply of his Expences therein was this bargain made wherein it doth not appear he took the Advice of any Friends or Councel but relyed wholy on the Defendant That the consideration of this grant is very small being but one years purchase for a Rent-charge in Fee-simple which is now hapned in possession and the over-value be it never so great is not of it self sufficient ground to set aside a bargain Fraud or not or whereupon this Court can presume fraud Yet it is a great evidence of fraud where there are other Circumstances concurring as there is in this Case And whereas the Defendant insisted that the Contingency of the death of a young Man without Issue Male was so great that it cannot be esteemed an over-value such a Reversion not being worth one years purchase His Lordship declared He looked upon it as an Artifice of the Defendant for it was easie to perswade the Earl Thomas who could not judge of his own defects that the Defendant had the worst of the Bargain Whereas it is not likely the Defendant would have made it but that he thought Earl Thomas would in a short time destroy himself by his Vitious and Debauched course of life and his Lordship was of Opinion the Defendant had Circumvented the Earl Thomas in this bargain and concluded upon the whole matter that the Plaintiff ought to be relieved in this Court A proper Bargain tho' over-reaching especially upon a Contingency relieveable but not to the damage of the bargaince and the Release made by Earl Tho. without any consent after the Settlement made upon the Plaintiff ought to be no Bar thereunto but in as much as his Lordship found by the presidents that in such cases This Court doth not turn any loss upon the Defendant but only correct the Excess and Extravagancy of such bargain Therefore his Lordship thought fit the 300 l. should be restored to the Defendant with consideration for the same at 6 l. per Cent. and on payment thereof the Defendant to convey the said Rent-charge of 300 l. per Annum and all his Title Interest and Demand in the premisses to the Plaintiff and granted a perpetual Injunction not only to stay all proceedings at Law but for quieting the Plaintiff his Heirs c. in the possession of the premisses Langton contra North al' 35 Car. 2. fo 95. THat Sir Robert Gouning Deceased Marriage Settlement being Seized of Lands and a great Personal Estate upon a Marriage to be had between him and the Defendant
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
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
and that this differs from ordinary Mortgages the Lease being to commence after failure of Payment by the Heirs Executors or Administrators of the said Alexander and there was no Proviso therein and that the said Lady Ann in all probability hath paid many Hundreds of Pounds and Elizabeth might have lived many years longer and tho' the Lady Ann had paid treble the value yet she must have been contented with her Security and the said Robert Brett did not think the same worth Redeeming and tho' the Reversion in Fee was Extended in 1646 yet the said Robert Brett and the Defendant Ewens continued possession till Judgment on the Writ of Partition and from thence till 1662. which was 20 years after the Plaintiffs Judgment and the Lady Ann was to continue possession till the Children attained 21 years of Age which was in 1636. when the said demise to them made did commence This Court being assisted with the Judges were of Opinion and declared themselves fully satisfied That the Plaintiff ought not to have any Relief against the Defendants but that the Bill ought to be dismissed for that his Lordship doth take a difference betwixt the Lease which is to commence after failure of Payment and a Mortgage with a Condition subsequent Difference betwixt a Lease which is to commence after failure of Payment and a Mortgage with a Condition subsequent and the rather in this case for that the breach was in the failure of payment of 250 l. per Annum which the said Lady was thereby obliged to pay for a young Life and so might have been paid for many years and if it had been paid in the Casualty for 20 years the Heirs would never have redeemed it and therefore no Reason why the Plaintiff should take advantage thereof and also the Agreemant before mentioned between the said Dame Ann and Kirkham weighed much in this Court to which Agreement Robert the Heir by his Enjoying of the premisses so assigned together with the Defendant Ewens and his Wife after he came of Age consented and there was no disturbance during the Tenancy in Common as to the Right but to as perception of Profits only and the Heir permitting the Defendant Ewens and his Wife to have Judgment on the Writ of Partition was a Consent of the whole Redemption after a long time and in this Consent it is not the Heir but a Stranger who seeks to redeem and no man that puts himself after so long a time into a condition to redeem Plaintiff not relieved upon a Judgment entred into 60 years ago and no Consideration proved shall have any Relief here and it is the stronger against the Plaintiff that no Consideration is proved for the said Judgment which was entred into so long since as the Year 1640 and after 60 years this Court will not relieve the Plaintiff but dismiss the Bill Boulter contra Chester al' 22 Car. 2. fo 60. THe Question being Bail Whether the Plaintiff Boulter who was a Surety for one Ree should pay any more than the Sum of 40 l. for which he was Bail for the Appearance of one Roger Ree at the Defendants Suit the Ac etiam Bill being only for 40 l. whenas the Defendant demands 55 l. for a years Rent for the premisses and 10 l. damages for want of Repair of the premisses besides Costs and would fix the same on the Plaintiffs the Bail but the main Question being Whether the Bail ought to answer or pay any more than what was exprest in the Writ which is 40 l. Bail to answer no more than what is exprest in the Ac etiam Bill or whether he ought to answer or pay what might have been recovered in case the said Ree for whom the Plaintiff was Bail had appeared and defended the Action This Court conceived that the Desendant Stretton ought to have no more than what was expressed in the Writ and Ac etiam Bill for which the Plaintiff was only bail but his Costs in the same already taxed at Law and by the Master and ordered the same accordingly Floyer contra Hedgingham 21 Car. 2. fo 809. THat no Copyholder ought to be admitted to any Copyhold Estate by Letter of Attorney Copyholder not to be admitted by Letter of Attorney for that he ought to do Fealty at the time of his admittance which cannot be done by an Attorney but ought to be done in person by reason that no man can swear by Attorney Hunt contra Jones 22 Car. 2. THe Bill is That the Defendant Jones who is the surviving Trustee may assign and convey all his Interest and Estate in Brockley in Com Worcester to the Plaintiff Limitation of a Lease the said Plaintiff Intituling her self thereto as Administratrix to Edward Palmer the Plaintiff setting forth by the Bill That Edmund late Bishop of Worcester did by two Indentures of 30 31 Eliz. demise the premisses to the late Queen and her Assignee during the several Terms and Rent therein expressed that the several Estates Terms and Interests being come and vested in the said Edward Palmer for the Remainder thereof he the said Palmer by Deedin 1652 in Consideration of a Marriage then to be had between him and the Plaintiff Mary assigns the said premisses unto Giles Palmer and the Defendant Jones and their Executors for the residue of the said Terms upon Trust to permit Elizabeth Palmer Mother of the said Edward to enjoy the said premisses for life and then to the said Edward for his life and after their Lives then to the Plaintiff Mary for her life and after their deceases then to heirs Males of the Body of the said Edward Palmer and the Plaintiff Mary and for default of such Issue then upon Trust for the right Heirs of the said Edward to their own use benefit and dispose as by the said Deed c. That the said Edward and Elizabeth Palmer being dead Letters of Administration were granted to the Plaintiff Mary by virtue whereof she is well Intituled to the said premisses and to the trust and benefit thereof for the Remainders of the said Terms to come and that the Defendant Jones as the surviving Trustee ought to assign to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff insists that all the Remainders after her death are void in Law and Equity The Defendant Jones insists That the Trust extends to the Child or Children of the said Edward Palmer and the Defendant Elizabeth Palmer an Infant being his Daughter she may question him for the same in case he should Assign as aforesaid and prays the Court will take care for the Infants But the Plaintiff insisting That both in the cases of Executors and Administrators the Point hath been frequently Adjudged Limitation of a Term in Trust for heirs Males c. void in Law and the Limitation to the heirs Male or heir General being a void Limitation in Law where there is no Executor the Trust shall come
Children This Court is of Opinion That the said 60 l. belonged only to the Children of the said Mark Warren which he had by his then Wife at the time when the said Mony was given and decreed the same accordingly Wallop contra Dominam Hewett 24 Car. 2. fo 218. THe Plaintiffs Henry and John Wallop seek Relief for 400 l. Legacies given by a Will and a Codicil and are distinct not one and the same viz. 200 l. apiece Legacy given them by the Will and Codicil of the Lady Crofts The Case is That the Lady Crofts by her Will gave the Plaintiffs 100 l. apiece and afterwards by a Codicil annexed to her Will gave the Plaintiffs 100 l. apiece The Question is Whether the said Legacies so given be one and the same or distinct and several Legacies or what her Intention was in reference to the same and desire the Judgment of the Court therein This Court with the Judges on Reading the said Will and Codicil were of Opinion and satisfied That the said Legacies in the said Will and Codicil mentioned are not one and the same but distinct and several Legacies of 200 l. and decreed the Defendants to pay the said Plaintiffs 400 l. Thorne contra Newman 24 Car. 2. fo 371. 24 Car. 2. fo 8. THat Nicholas Burnell Deed of Revocation Father of the Defendant Margaret Newman being seised of the premisses in 1652. demised the same to Elizabeth Stone for 99 years at a Pepper-Corn with a Proviso to be void on payment of 590 l. and the said Elizabeth died and made Elizabeth Wheat her Executrix and Thomas Baker marrying the Defendant Margaret Newman in November 1657. Elizabeth Wheat and the said Nicholas Burnell Assigning the premisses to Thomas Baker and the said Baker for 500 l. borrowed of the Plaintiff Assigned to one Minterne in Trust for the Plaintiff in 1659 and Baker failing in payment contracted with the Plaintiff for 770 l. more that he would give his Interest in the premisses absolutely without any power of redemption and Baker and Minterne did joyn accordingly in 1660. And the Plaintiff insists That the Defendant claims the premisses by a Deed dated the 19th of August 1659. whereby it is pretended That by Indenture made between the said Old Burnell of the one part and Thomas Lewis and Bartholomew Pickering of the other part the said Burnell in Consideration of the Natural love and affection to the said Margaret and for the setling and confirming of the premisses for the uses therein and for 5 s. Covenanted to stand seized of the premisses to himself for life Remainder to the Defendant Margaret for life then to the Wife of the said Thomas Baker Remainder to the Heirs of her Body with Remainders over and the said Burnell dying in 1659. the premisses then vested in Margaret and that Baker in her Right became seised of the Freehold thereof and that thereby the Remainder of the said term of 99 years was drowned Term drowning in a Freehold and so the Assignment to Minterne and the Assignment by Baker and Minterne to the Plaintiff was void and so the Plaintiff a purchaser for 1300 l. like to be defeated And the Plaintiff further insists That if the said Deed were ever sealed it is with a Proviso of Revocation to be void on payment or tender of 12 d. to Lewis or Pickering or either of them in the Middle-Temple-Hall and that Burnell did tender 12 d. to Lewis with intention to make void the said Deed and declared so to Lewis that she did revoke the said Deed and pulled the Seal off from it and that a Memorandum was Indorsed on the backside of the Deed That there was 22 Octob. 1659. 12 d. tendered to Lewis to revoke the said Deed but the Defendants pretend because the 12 d. was not tendered in the Middle-Temple-Hall therefore the Revocation was not legal and so the said Deed still in force and the Plaintiffs Estate drowned The Defendants admit the Case to be as aforesaid but insist That the said Deed 19 Aug. 1659. was intended for a Settlement on the Defendant Margaret for a provision for her after the death of the said Baker her Husband he having not made any Joynture and that the said Defendants claim the premisses by the said Deed whereby immediately upon the death of Burnell the Freehold of the Premisses vested in Baker in right of the said Margaret his Wife and so the Plaintiffs Estate was drowned and that Baker was not by intention of the said Deed to sell away the premisses for any longer time than his own life without the said Margarets Consent and Joyning with him in a Fine thereof And the Defendants further insist That the 12 d. ought to have been tendred in the Middle-Temple Hall else the Deed must be in force and if any Memorandum or Declaration were made as aforesaid the same was done out of design only to have the said Baker make the said Margaret a Joynture But the Plaintiff insists That he ought to hold the said premisses for the residue of the said term for 99 years against the said Deed. This Court was satisfied That the Plaintiff ought in Equity to enjoy the premisses against the Defendants Voluntary Deed set aside against a purchaser and that the said Deed ought to be set aside as against the Plaintiff but the Defendants are to redeem The Bill being to set aside a pretended voluntary Conveyance set on foot by the Defendant Conveyance with power of Revocation on payment of 12 d. at such a place 12 d. was tendered at another place with express declaration to revoke the Deed. which Deed is with power of Revocation upon the tender of 12 d. and the 12 d. was tendered accordingly with intent to revoke the said Deed and the said Deed is accordingly Cancelled but the Defendants in respect the 12 d. was not tendered at the place appointed set the said Deed up at Common Law and upon a Trial at Law without any defence made by the Plaintiff the Defendants were Nonsuited and the Plaintiff being a purchaser of the premisses first by Mortgage for 500 l. and afterwards by absolute Assignment for 770 l. more The Lord Keeper upon reading the said Cancelled Deed saw no cause to alter the Master of the Rolls his Decree aforesaid but ordered the same to stand Confirmed Comes Sterling contra Levingston 24 Car. 2. fo 113. 432. THat Sir Peter Vanlore the Elder being seised in Fee of the Lands by Deed Covenanted to stand seised thereof to several uses under which all parties to the Suit claim several parts of the premisses and here being a Proviso in the said Deed That if young Sir Peter Vanlore or the Issue whose Issues and Heir the now Plaintiffs are should attempt to impeach the said Settlement that then the uses to him and them limited by the said Deed should be void and that by the death of several persons several parts
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
if he were intituled to a Bill of Revivor he could not revive for Costs there being no Decree inrolled This Court allowed the Defendants Demurrer and dismist the Plaintiffs Bill of Revivor Raymond contra Paroch Buttolphs Aldgate in Com. Midd. 32 Car. 2. fo 517. THe Plaintiff being one of the Kings Waiters in the Port of London Priviledge and yet used the Trade of a Common Brewer and executed his said place by a Deputy The Defendants insist He is not to be exempted from bearing the Office of Overseer of the poor in the Parish The Plaintiff insists That the Kings Officers who serve his Majesty in Relation to his Revenue ought to be exempted from Parish Offices though they executed their places by Deputy and use an other Trade they being still liable to answer any misdemeaner committed by their Deputies and if their Deputies should be absent at any time they are bound to execute the same themselves which often falls out and Presidents of this Nature have often been found and hopes this Court will not take away any the priviledges such Officers ought to enjoy in right of their Offices and that a Supersedeas of priviledge be allowed the Plaintiff and his Writ of priviledge stand The Defendants insist That the Plaintiff driving a Trade of a Common Brewer and getting Money in the Parish he ought to bear the Offices of the Parish notwithstanding his said Office and if any Priviledge were due it ought to be granted by the Court of Exchequer and not by this Court This Court declared The Kings Officer priviledge from Parish Offices tho' he drive a Trade in the Parish That the Kings Officers ought to have the benefit of their priviledge and the execution thereof by a Deputy nor his dealing in another Trade should not in any sort be prejudicial to him he being to answer for any neglect or misdemeanour committed by his Deputy for that it is not reasonable that the Kings Servants or Officers should have nothing else to subsist on Such priviledge grantable out of Chancery as well as Exchequer but their immediate Services or Places under his Majesty and take no other imployment on them and although a priviledge of that nature be grantable in the Exchequer a Writ of priviledge under the great Seal was and ought to be taken in all respects as effectual and therefore allowed the Plaintiff his priviledge Dominus Bruce contra Gape 32 Car. 2. fo 723. THe question in this case is Deed. Will. Revocation whether the Mannour of Mudghill is within the devise of the Duke of Somerset by his Will in August 1657. of the Residue of the Estate unsold for the benefit of his three Daughters and the Lady Bruce his Grand-Child or whether it belongs to the Lady Bruce only as Heir at Law and whether the same be liable and comprehended in the Trust together with other Manours and Lands to Satisfie the 19100 l. Debts only or is subject with the other Lands in the said Deed and Will for Satisfaction of all the debts of the said Duke William The Case is viz. that the Plaintiff the Lady Elizabeth Wife of the Lord Bruce is Grand child and Heir of William late Duke of Somerset and Sister and next Heir of William also late Duke of Somerset who was the only Son of Henry Lord Beauchamp the Eldest Son of William Duke of Somerset the Grandfather which said Duke William the Grandfather did by deed the 13 Nov. 1652. Convey to the Lord Seymour Sir Olando Bridgman c. and their Heirs the Mannour and Lands in Trust for payment of Moneys to the Lord John Seymour and the Lady Jane Seymour Then upon further Trust to pay Debts amounting to 19100 l. and after in Trust for raising 10000 l. for the Lord John Seymour and 6000 l. for the Lady Jane Seymour and Trustees to account yearly to the right and next Heir of the said Duke with a power of Revocation in the said deed as to all but the said 19100 l. debts and that the said Duke William 19th of April 1654. as to a further provision for the payment of the Debts by deed conveyed to the Earl of Winchelsea and the Defendant Gape and others and their Heirs the Lands in Wilts and Somerset worth 30000 l. and sufficient to pay all his Debts to himself for life and after for payment of Annuities and after his death then to the use of the last Trustees and their Heirs upon special Trust that they should lease out the premisses and with the Mony thereby raised and otherwise with the profits pay all such Debts for which the Plaintiff stood ingaged for the said Duke and that the overplus of the said Mony and Profits to be paid and the Lands unsold to be conveyed to the right Heirs of the said Duke wherein was a power reserved in the said Duke by deed or Will to revoke the said Uses or Trust That the said Duke by deed the 20 of April 1654. reciting that the Lord Beauchamp the Eldest Son died since the deed of the 13 of November 1652. and had left only one Son and the Plaintiff Lady Bruce and that the Lady Bruce was left unprovided for and reciting the deed of the 19 of April 1654. made an Additional provision for the payment of his debts which made the Lands the deed of 1652. of a greater value than would satisfie the said Trust and therefore appointed the last Trustees in the deed of 1652. should out of the Money to be raised by Sail of those Land and the profits thereof pay the Plaintiff Elizabeth Lady Bruce 100 l. per Annum till her Age of 17 and after 300 l. per Annum and then after the debts in the deed of 1652. and Portions to the Lord John and Lady Jane Seymour then to pay Elizabeth the the Lady Bruce 6000 l. portion also with power of Revocation That afterwards the said Duke by Will 15 of August 1657. having as aforesaid secured the said 19100 l. debts devised to his Son the Lord John Seymour and the Heirs Males of his Body the said Mannour of Mudghill and because the Lady Ann Beauchamp his Sister in Law had the same as part of her Joynture and the same was Leased out for the life of Pleydall his Will was that till the same fell in possessision to the Lord Seymour the Trustees in the deed of 1652. should pay him maintenance and they to convey to him when they thought fit and by the said Will taking notice of the deed in 1652. and of the 19 of April 1654. and also of his power of Revocation appointed and declared the Trusts in those deeds for his Grandson William Lord Beauchamp and the Plaintiff the Lady Elizabeth Bruce or for the benefit of his Right Heirs should cease and the same was thereby revoked and appointed the Trustees in those deeds to convey the said premisses to the Lady Frances his Wife and the Earl of
South-hampton and the Earl of Winchelsey and Sir Orlando Bridgman and the said Gape and others and their Heirs upon Trust as to Mudghill as he before had declared and as to the rest of the Mannours and Lands on Trust for payment of all such debts in the said Indentures to be paid and unpaid at his death and for freeing his personal Estate and Executors from the payment thereof and of the Trust in the Deed of 1652 for the Lady Jane Seymour and after these Trusts performed all the Lands unsold and the Reversion thereof be disposed by the Lady Dutchess of Sommerset his Wife and the Trustees by his Will and their Heirs for 21 years from his death to such as the said Lady Dutchess should appoint and in default of such appointment for the raising such sums of Mony for the Plaintiff Elizabeth's portion and maintenance as the Deed of the 20 of April 1654 appoints or in default of such appointment by the Dutchess to go to such Person to whom the Trust of the Inheritance of the premisses after the 21 years is limited by the Will and the conveyance so to be made to the said Dutchess and the other person named in his Will should be upon further Trust that the said Dutchess and the other person should stand seized of the said Lands unsold and the Reversion of such part thereof as should be leased out for lives or years in Trust for William Lord Beauchamp and the Heirs Males of his Body and for want of such Issue forthe benefit of John Lord Seymour for life and after for the benefit of the first and every other Son of his Body and the Heirs Males of their Bodies respectively and for default of such Issue for the benefit of all his Daughters and the Plaintiff the Lady Elizabeth Bruce his Grandchild and all the Daughters of John Lord Seymour and their Heirs equally as Tenants in common and not as Joynt Tenants which Will the said Duke in 1660 ratified by new publishing thereof and all the Trustees in the deed of 1652 being dead except Sir Orlando Bridgman and Gape and the interest in Law being in them by Survivor ship Sir Orlando Bridgman knowing the debts in the deed of 1652 to be paid conveyed all the Lands therein mentioned to the said Dutchess of Sommerset That in 1671 the said William Lord Beauchamp Duke of Sommerset died without Issue whose Heir the Plaintiff the Lady Bruce is and after the Lord John Seymour became Duke of Sommerset and died without Issue by whose death the Plaintiff the Lady Bruce is intituled as Heir to Duke William her Grandfather to the reversion in fee of Mudghill Duke John being only Tenant in Tail thereof and ought to injoy the same it not being liable to pay any debts but is discharged thereof by her Grandfathers Will and not disposed from her by any Act the 19100 l. being all paid So that the questions now before the Court were whether the reversion of Mudghill expectant upon Pleydalls Estate for life as well as the residue of the Estate be liable to all the debts which Duke William owed at his death or only to the 19100 l. debts And secondly Whether the reversion of Mudghill as well as the residue of the Estate after satisfaction of all the debts of Duke William ought to be for the benefit of all Duke Williams Daughters and the Plaintiff Lady Bruce and their Heirs equally or the said reversion to go intirely to the said Lady Bruce as right Heir to Duke William As to the first question the Defendant insisted the said Reversion as well as the other Estate is liable to all the debts for that by the deed of 1652. Mudghill was conveyed for raising of Money for the payment of 19100 l. debts and all other debts that he should owe at the time of his death in which deed it is provided that after the said debts be paid he might by any deed or his last Will Revoke all or any of the said Trusts other than as concerning the 19100. debts yet made no Revocation other than by his last Will and therein he Revoked only those Trusts that were for the benefit of the Lord Beauchamp or the Lady Elizabeth Seymour or his own right Heirs and by the said deed the Legal Estate in Mudghill is setled in the Trustees and their Heirs and the Duke had no power to Revoke the uses or Estates till after the 19100 l. was paid and the said Duke directing his Trustees to convey Mudghill to his Son John he did thereby dispose of an equitable interest only of the reversion of Mudghill and the 19100 l. was not paid in the said Dukes life-time but great part remains unpaid and he hath contracted several new debts since the 20th of April 1654. which the Defendant since paid upon the Securities of the said Lands and Mudghill is one of the Mannours conveyed by the deed of 1652. for the payment of 19100 l. and all other the debts he should owe at the time of his death and altho' the same be directed by the last Will of the said Duke to be setled upon the Lord John Seymour and his Heirs Males yet the said Duke by deed of 1652. had no power to revoke the same for the payment of his debts or if he had he did not revoke the same by the said Will but left Mudghill and other the premisses subject to the payment of his debts and the Trustees understanding such to be the Dukes intention never setled Mudghill on the said Lord John Seymour who being lately dead without Issue the same is subjected to the payment of the said Duke Williams debts and when debts are satisfied the overplus of the Moneys and the said Mudghill and all other the premisses ought to be divided according to the intent of the said Dukes Will and by the said Dukes death and the Releases of the said Trustees the interest in Law became vested in Sir Orlando Bridgman and he conveyed Mudghill c. unto the said Dutchess and the said Gape and other the Trustees and their Heirs that they might therewith pay the said debts and though there be sufficient besides Mudghill to pay all the debts yet by the Will upon which this question doth arise that thereby the Trust for the Right Heirs of the said Duke are revoked in express Terms so that by any deed preceding the said Will the Plaintiff the Lady Bruce cannot claim any advantage as Heir the rather for that by the Will it doth appear that Duke William had an equal regard to his own Daughter and the Plaintiff the Lady Bruce his Grandchild and Heir and it cannot be presumed that he would more concern himself for the Welfare of a Grand-daughter than his own Daughters nor was the said Reversion of Mudghill disposed to the Plaintiff by any words in the Will though he did by express words in his Will Revoke all Trusts for the benefit of his Heirs in
is born since the Will that Child shall have a share the same being given to them by Name and as to the Real Estate it being ordered by the Testator to be added to his Personal for increase of all his Childrens Portions and the said Sarah being born before he died the same to be Sold and divided amongst the five Children viz. Benjamin Samuel Mary Hannah and Sarah equally Sale contra Freeland 32 Car. 2. fo 272. THat Thomas Freeland the Defendants great Grandfather Will. Settlement Revocation being Seized of the premisses did by his Will in writing devise the same to Nicholas his Son for life only and afterwards to his Grandson John late Husband of the Defendant Frances and Father of the Defendant John and his Heirs for ever That the said Thomas and Nicholas being dead John the Grandson entred and for 300 l. Mortgaged the premisses to the Plaintiff and not long after the said John on confidence of the power he had to dispose of the premisses made his Will and the Defendant Frances Executrix and devised the premisses to be Sold for payment of his Debts But the Defendant insists That the said Thomas the great Grandfather had no power to dispose of the same premisses and if he had he did not pursue it regularly for that he had made a Settlement of the premisses in 1651. upon one Henry Weston and his Heirs to the use of him the said Thomas for life and after to Nicholas his Son for life and after to the use of the said John his Grandson and the Heirs of his Body with remainder over and that the Defendant John the Grandson by virtue of the said deed as Heir in Tail claims the premisses whereas if any such deed were it was with a power of Revocation by any Writing or Will in writing to be executed in the presence of three Witnesses and was revoked by his making his said Will in the presence of three Witnesses though one of them then present did not subscribe the same That the said John the Grandson had the full power of the Estate and the grant made to the Plaintiff ought to be supported in Equity being for valuable consideration though the power was not litterally pursued in the Circumstances of three Witnesses the intent of the Person appearing as sufficiently by two Witnesses as if there were three and submit to the Judgment of this Court The Plaintiff farther insisting That the said Thomas the great Grandfather takes notice in the preamble of his Will of the power by him reserved upon the said Settlement to make any alteration thereof during his life and then by the said Will deviseth the premisses to the said John his Grandson in Fee and he Mortgages to the Plaintiff and there is no Colour but the Defendants ought to redeem or be foreclosed This Court it appearing that there was more than two Witnesses present at the publishing the Will A Settlement with power of revocation by Will in writing executed in the presence of three witnesses but one of them did not Subscribe his Name yet Decreed a sufficient Revocation though two only Subscribed their Names thereto and upon hearing the words of the power and also the Will of the said Thomas Read declared that as this case was Circumstanced there ought to be a Redemption or a foreclosure and that the Will although but two Witnesses to it did sufficiently revoke the said deed of Intail Rose contra Tillier 33 Car. 2. fo 435. THat William Tillier deceased Copyhold Surrendred on Condition to pay 200 l. to Katherine at 21 years of Age and if she die before 21 without Heirs of her Body then to the Surrendree Katherine dies before 21 leaving a Son Decreed the 200 l. to be paid to the Son and the Lands to stand charged therewith 14 Car. 2. Surrendred Copyhold Lands of Inheritance to the use of the Defendant J. Tillier his Heirs and Assigns for ever upon condition that the Defendant should pay or cause to be paid to Katherine Tillier the Daughter of the said William Tillier 200 l. when she should accomplish the Age of 21 and if the said Katherine should die before 21 without Heirs of her Body then the said 200 l. to be for the use of the said Defendant but if default should be made by the said Defendant then the said Copyhold Lands should be to the use of the said Catherine her Heirs and Assigns and the said Surrender to be void and the said Willian Tillier after the said Surrender and before he died by writing appointed the said Defendant not only to pay the said 200 l. to the said Katherine but also 6 l. per Cent. till such time as the same became due That the Plaintiff married the said Katherine and had by her one Son named George that after Katherine died and then George and the Plaintiff took Administration to them both whereby he is intituled to the said 200 l. with damages The Defendant insists That Katherine died before the Age of 21 and so he is not liable to pay the said 200 l. or to give any Account of the Lands or Profits in the Surrender This Court decreed the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the said 200 l. and that the said Lands so surrendred stand charged therewith Thompson contra Atfield 33 Car. 2. fo 412. THe Bill is to discover a purchase Deed of Frogpoole Marriage Settlement purchased by Henry Atfield the Plaintiffs Great Grandfather to him and his Heirs and that William Thompson the Plaintiffs Grandfather married Mary the eldest Daughter of the said Henry Atfield who declared that he had made the purchase aforesaid for the benefit of the said William and Mary his Wife and for the Heirs of the said Mary and that he would settle the same accordingly but the said Henry Atfield dying before any such Deed was executed yet the said William and Mary were in possession long before the death of the said Henry and paid no Rent and the said Henry leaving a Son at his death viz John Atfield the Defendants Father who having a great affection for Anthony Thompson the Plaintiffs Father who was the Son and only Child of the said William and Mary his Aunt a Match was proposed between the said Anthony and Elizabeth Smith the Plaintiffs Father and Mother which took effect but before and in consideration of the said Marriage the said John Atfield the Defendants Father setled the said premisses on the said Anthony the Plaintiffs Father and his Heirs for ever and the said Anth. had by the said Elizabeth the Plaintiff his eldest Son and Heir But the Defendants pretend the said Deed is defective in Law to have which Deed made good and supply the defect thereof by Equity by the Defendant according to the intent of the original Settlement made by John Atfeild the Defendants Father is the Bill The Defendant insists There could be no such Marriage Agreement for setling
the premisses as aforesaid for that Mary sued her Mother and had her portion out of the personal Estate and though the Defendants Father might intend to give the Plaintiffs Father the premisses and sealed a Deed for that purpose yet he altered his Mind and never perfected it and there was no Consideration for his so doing And the Defendant insists He ought to enjoy the premisses for that by the Plaintiffs own shewing his Title is defective and therefore ought not to receive any countenance in a Court of Equity against the Defendant who is Heir at Law to his Father and Grandfather and comes in and ought to have the Aid of the Court to protect his Title But the Plaintiffs Council insisted That the Defendants detaining of the said Deed is a Fraud and the Consideration of making the said Deed is valuable Defect of Livery and Seisin aided in Chancery and there is no defect therein but want of Livery and Seizin which defect this Court hath often supplied when no Fraud appears in gaining the Deed. This Court the said Deed appearing to be fairly executed by the Defendants Father and that there was no defect therein save only the form of Livery and Seizin and made on such valuable Consideration as Marriage decreed the Defendant to execute Livery and Seizin in the said Deed and make farther assurance of the said premisses to the Plaintiff and his Heirs and the Plaintiff is decreed to enjoy the same against the Defendant Barker contra Hill 33 Car. 2. fo 278. THe Plaintiff having Contracted with the Defendants Father for the purchase of a Copyhold Estate Upon a Contract for Copy-hold Estate and purchase Mony paid the Bargainor dies before Surrender his Heir decreed to surrender the Plaintiff paid the purchase Mony and the Defendants Father agreed to surrender the premisses at next Court and said He had made a Surrender lately to the use of his Will which would enure to the benefit of any Purchaser but before next Court day and any Surrender made the Defendants Father died so the Bill is to have the Defendant his Son and Heir to confirm the Plaintiffs purchase by Surrender or otherwise as this Court shall direct This Court decreed the Defendant when he came of Age to surrender effectually the premisses to the Plaintiff and the Lord of the Mannor presently to admit the Plaintiff Tenant to the premisses Bonnington contra Walthall 33 Car. 2. fo 37. THe Defendant Walthall claims an Annuity of 100 l. per An. Annuity and Interest out of the Estate in question ever since August 1642. with Interest by virtue of a Deed of that date made by himself to Mr. Serjeant Willmot and others whereby it is appointed that the Trustees in the said Deed should dispose of the Monies by them raised by profits and sale of the premisses for payment to the said Defendant and his Assigns during his life and the life of Peter Bonnington the yearly Sum of 100 l. and the said demand of the said 100 l. per Annum and Interest being a Matter of great value and moment in the Cause it is referred to the Judgment of the Court whether all or how long the said 100 l. per Annum shall or ought to be allowed in this point as also the original Cause which was heard 19 Nov. 1679. coming now to be heard again The Plaintiff insisted That the 100 l. per Annum if it was created the same determined by the death of Peter Bonnington But the Defendant Walthall insists to have Allowance for the said Annuity of 100 l. and Interest for the same for 40 years past whereas the Plaintiff insists That the 100 l. per Annum never was nor ought to be allowed to the Defendant for that the Deed of August 1642. under which the Defendant claims the said 100 l. per Annum the same was to be paid in the first place before debts and there being a debt due to one Chambers which the said Defendant brought in against which debt if the said Annuity had been real the Defendant would have opposed the payment of his said 100 l. per Annum being to be paid in the first place and the Defendant not demanding the said Annuity in 40 years and suffering debts to be paid before it it ought to be adjudged a Trust for Peter Bonnington and the rather for that no Consideration appears for such Annuity The Defendant insists That the Plaintiff admits it a Trust and seeks Relief only for the Surplus after Trusts satisfied and determined and this Trust being Continuing the same with Arrears and Interest ought to be paid to the said Walthall This Court on reading the said Deed Annuity not being demanded in 40 years time conceived to be a Trust saw no Consideration for granting the said Annuity and it never being demanded this Court conceived it was a Trust for Bonnington and would not charge the Estate therewith and decreed the Estate to be discharged thereof Ring contra Hele 33 Car. 2. fo 270. THe Plaintiffs Rings Bill is for the Writings and Estate of Sir Henry Hele which he claims by virtue of an Agreement made by the said Sir Henry and him wherein it was agreed that the said Sir Henry should settle his Lands in Wigborough and Bridges in Com' Sommerset on himself for life after to the Heirs of his Body with power to make his Wife a Joynture of Wigborough and to grant Estates thereout for three lives with a Remainder to the Plaintiff Ring and the Heirs of his Body if he Survived and Sir Henry died without Issue with Remainder to Sir Henry's right Heirs with power to Sir Henry to sell Pooles Tenement part of the premisses and Sir Henry was forthwith to suffer a Recovery to dock the Intail of the premisses Consideration and in consideration thereof the Plaintiff Ring was to settle his Estate in Dorset and Sommerset to the use of himself in Tail with Remainder in Tail to Sir Henry Hele with Remainder in Fee to the Plaintiff and that if either party leave Issue to be at liberty to make new dispositions as he pleased That Sir Henry imployed one Chubb and Patten to assist the Plaintiff Ring in Surveying Sir Henry's Estate and after both the Plaintiff Ring and Sir Henry went to Counsel who advised a Deed of bargain and sale of the said Estate from Sir Henry to the Plaintiff Ring which was executed between the said Sir Henry and the Plaintiff Ring and Inrolled and bears date the 26 of March 1673 That before the said Recovery the Plaintiff Ring prepared another Deed dated the 6th of May following to lead the uses thereof according to the said Agreements and a draught of a Settlement of the Plaintiff Rings Estate on Sir Henry both which being perused and approved by Sir Henry were also executed and the Deed to lead the uses of the Recovery recited the said Agreement and Inrolled Deed to make the Defendant
the 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
and Seisin This Court declared and was fully satisfied That in this Case his Majesty ought to be relieved Grant and Inrolment in the Dutchy-Court vacated and the Patentees decreed to Reconvey to the King and the said Grant set aside and made void and decreed the same accordingly and the Inrolment thereof in the Dutchy-Court vacated and the Defendants to procure those in whom the Estate in Law is to Reconvey unto his Majesty and the Defendants at liberty to apply to his Majesty for to have the Mony paid back which was paid to Sir Thomas Chichley and Cuxton as aforesaid Beckford contra Beckford 1 Jac. 2. fo 196. THat Richard Beckford Citizen and Freeman of London had several Children and by his Will in writing after Debts and Funeral Charges paid appointed one full third part of his Personal Estate to the Plaintiff Frances Beckford his Relict according to the Custom of the City of London and declared that Frances and Elizabeth two of his Daughters had been fully advanced in his life-time and that Mary and Jane two other Daughters had not and directed they should bring their Portions they had received into the third part of his Personal Estate belonging unto his unpreferred Children and they should have equal shares with his unpreferred Children Now the question between the Plaintiff Frances and the unpreferred Children how the said Estate should be divided by the Custom of London the Plaintiff Frances insisting that the Children not fully Advanced ought to bring what they had received into the whole Estate and then she ought to have one full third part of the whole Personal Estate insisting That every Widow of a Freeman ought by the Custom of London to be indowed with one full third part of the whole Personal Estate This Court declared the Custom to be The unadvanced Children by the Custom of London to bring in what they had received into Hotch-potch with with the Orphanage thirds after the Estate is divided into thirds and not with the whole Estate That the Testators two Children Mary and Jane who were not fully Advanced were to bring what they had received into Hotch-potch with the Orphanage thirds after the Estate is divided into thirds and not into Hotch potch with the whole Estate and decreed accordingly And what hath been received by any one more than their share and Legacies is to be Repaid as the Master shall appoint Halliley contra Kirtland 1 Jac. 2. fo 566. THat John Park Mortgaged Lands to the Defendant Kirtland for 60 l. Mortgage and was also indebted to the Defendant Sanderson 50 l. on Bond and the said Kirtland wanting his money Assigned the said Mortgage to the said Sanderson so that Sanderson on payment to him the money paid to Kirtland on the said Mortgage and his 50 l. on Bond and Interest is willing to Reconvey to the Plaintiff which they refuse to do This Court in as much as the Estate so vested in the Defendant as aforesaid The Plaintiff decreed to pay off a Bond of 50 l. as well as the Mortgage money upon Redemption is a Chattel Lease and so liable to debts and the Defendant having an Assignment of the Mortgage and his debt on Bond being a just debt declared that the Plaintiff ought not to be let in to a Redemption of the said Mortgage but upon payment of the said 50 l. and interest due on the said Bond as well as the Mortgage money and decreed accordingly Coltman contra Warr 1 Jac. 2. fo 566. THis Court would not Rehear a Cause after decree Signed and Inrolled No re-hearing after a Decree Signed and Inroled notwithstanding the said Cause had been opened since the Inrolement in order to Re-hearing and discharged the Order for Re-hearing Jones al' contra Henley 1 Jac. 2. fo 995. SIR Robert Henley by Will gives 100 l. Legacies a piece to all his Servants which Will is Dated the 10th of November 1680. and Sir Robert lived afterwards till the 7th of August 1681. but made no Republication of the said Will and the Plaintiffs as Servants to Sir Robert demands 100 l. apiece Legacy That these Servants viz. Jones Clerk Meeke Serle and Hanbury were all Menial Servants before the 10th of November 1680. and so continued till the 7th of August 1681. That these Servants viz. Litchfield Davies Deacon Booth Noon c. were all Servants at the time of his death but were not in his Service at the time of making of the Will that Cook and Hawkes were both Servants at the 10th of November 1680. but before the 7th of August 1681. were discharged from his Service That William Harris son was a Menial Servant the 10th of November 1680. but dyed before the 7th of August 1681. That Castilian Goddard c. were Servants at large but not Menial viz. as Steward and Bailiff before the 10th of November 1680. and so continued till the said 1681. but did not Inhabit in the House That Stranger and Long were Chairmen and agreed with after the said 1680. at 20 s. per week so The Plaintiffs insist That such that were his Servants at the time of his death ought to have the benefit of the said Devise But the Defendant insisted That none of the Plaintiffs can be any ways intituled to that benefit but only such as were Menial Servants before the publishing of the said Will and did so continue all along to be Menial Servants and live in the House with him to the time of his death This Court declared Who are Servants capable to receive Legacies by the general words of a. Will To all my Servants c. that none of the said Plaintiffs but such as were Servants to the said Sir Robert before the making the said Will and did so continue to be Servants to him until the time of his death could have any pretence to the said Legacy and such only as were his Menial Servants and lived all along in the House with him from before the 10th of November 1680. until the 7th of August 1681. and no others and ordered that Jones Clerk c. only and no other of the Plaintiffs be paid their Legacy of a 100 l. a piece by the said Defendant and ordered the Bill as to all the other Plaintiffs to be dismissed Fenwick al' contra Woodroffe al' 1 Jac. 2. fo 400. THat Doctor Smalwood deceased Agreement on Marriage to purchase Lands by Deed in 1672 conveys the Land and premisses to Trustees and their Heirs to the use of himself for life Remainder to Theophania his Wife for life Remainder to Mary their sole Daughter and the Heirs of her Body Remainder to his own right Heirs with a proviso That if his said Daughter Mary should then after Marry in his life time without his privity and consent first had then all and every the uses and limitations therein mentioned and made should cease and be utterly void That the said Mary
c. upon Trust to himself for life and after his death to satisfie the said Bond of 3000 l. for payment of 1500 l. to Sir Jonathan for the future Maintenace of the said Frances according to the said Marriage Agreement and in full of Dower and to do all things according as he by his last Will should direct That the said Benjamin by Will 10 Dec. 1681. therein reciting the Condition of the said Bond gave his Wife 1000 l. unpaid of Sir Jonathans Bond and his Trustees to pay 1500 l. with 500 l. he had received of Sir Jonathan in part of his Wives portion which Sums made in all 3000 l. and was to be laid out in a purchase of Lands to be setled to the uses aforesaid and made Hulkot and Fowler Executors in Trust to manage for the Plaintiff whom he made his sole Executor who afterwards took upon him the Execution of the said Will and claims the said 3000 l. to be laid out in Lands to be setled according to the said Marriage Agreement which was in case Benjamin died without Issue the said Lands so to be setled were to come to Benjamins right Heirs and the Plaintiff is Instituted as Heir and Executor of Benjamin The Defendant Pierce confesses the Marriage Agreement and Bonds as in the Bill and that the Marriage between the said Henry and Frances took effect and the said Benjamin is since dead and that since his death the said Defendant Pierce hath married the said Frances and is thereby intituled to the benefit of the Bond entred into by the said Benjamin to Sir Jonathan and the Monies due thereon and to the Third part of Benjamins Lands The Plaintiffs insist That the said Frances dying without Issue the Mony in Sir Jonathan Atkyns his hands ought now to be paid to the Plaintiff This Court upon reading the said Bond and Condition and the Deed and Will of Benjamin declared That by the Marriage Agreement and Condition of the Bond it was very clear that the said Frances having no Issue by the said Benjamin could only have an Estate for life or the Interest of the Mony for her Maintenance and that the Plaintiff is well intituled to have the said 3000 l. paying the Defendant Pierce Interest for the 1500 l. which the said Benjamin the Plaintiffs Testator was bound to lay out and decreed accordingly Kettle by contra Lamb 2 Jac. 2. fo 1064. THat on a Treaty of Marriage between Richard Kettleby the Plaintiffs younger Brother Monies to be laid out in Lands for a Joynture by Marriage Articles and the Defendant Ann now Wife of the Defendant Atwood Articles were entred into and made between Thomas Laud Father of the Defendant Ann of the first part and the said Richard Kettleby of the second part and the Plaintiff and others Trustees of the third part whereby the said Lamb Covenanted to pay 1500 l. to the said Trustees as a Marriage-portion with the Defendant Ann his Daughter and the said Richard Kettleby Covenanted to pay 500 l. more which being 2000 l. was agreed to be laid out in the purchase of Lands to be setled upon the said Richard for life and after on the said Trustees and their Heirs during the life of Richard to preserve the contingent Remainders and after to the use of the said Ann his Wife during her life for her Joynture and after to their first and so to their seventh Son of their two Bodies and their Heirs successively and for want of such Issue to the Daughters and for want of such Issue to the right Heirs of the said Richard Kettleby for ever and that by the said Articles it was agreed that before such purchase could be made the said Trustees should place out at Interest the said 2000 l. and from time to time pay over the Interest to such person to whom the Lands are intended to be purchased was limited as if the same had been purchased and setled accordingly and there was a Proviso in the Articles That if the said Richard died before a purchase should be made leaving no Issue of his Body on the Body of the said Ann his intended Wife and Ann survived him that in that case the 2000 l. or so much thereof as was not laid out in Lands should either be laid out in the purchase of Lands to be setled upon the said Ann for life with Remainder to the right Heirs of Richard or else Three parts thereof the whole to be divided into Four parts of such Moneys as should be paid to the said Ann her Executors c. at her Election so as she made such Election within six Months after the said Richards death otherwise at the Election of Richards right Heir That afterwards the Marriage took effect and 1500 l. of the 2000 l. placed with the said Lamb by the Trustees who paid the Interest thereof to the said Richard Kettleby during his life and before the Mony was laid out in a purchase Richard died Intestete leaving Issue one Daughter named Ann who likewise died in a Month after the said Richard whereupon the Right of the 2000 l. or Lands to be purchased therewith after the death of Ann the Wife accrued to the Plaintiff Edward Kettleby as right Heir of the said Richard Kettleby so to have the 2000 l. invested in Lands and setled according to the said Articles for the benefit of the Plaintiff is the Plaintiffs Suit The Defendant Atwood who hath married the said Ann the Relict of the said Richard Kettleby insists That the said Ann his Wife is Administratrix to Richard her first Husband and the said Ann her Daughter and thereby well intituled to the personal Estate and that according to the Proviso in the said Articles the said Ann had made her Election to have 1500 l. of the 2000 l. to be at her own disposing and that she was well intituled to the other 500 l. as Administratrix to Richard and Ann her said Daughter and that the Marriage Articles being meerly for the benefit of the said Defendant Ann Atwood and her Issue and the Plaintiff no way intituled under the Consideration thereof there was no ground in Equity to compel a performance so as to give the Plaintiff the Defendants portion This Case being heard by the Lord Keeper North he declared That the 2000 l. did belong to the Administratrix of the said Richard Kettleby and ought not to be setled upon his Heir and dismissed the Plaintiffs Bill which dismission being signed and inrolled the Plaintiff brought his Bill of Review against the said Defendants and for Error Assigned that whereas it was declared by the said Lord North that the 2000 l. did belong to the Administratrix of Richard Kettleby and not to be setled upon his Heir That the same ought to be Decreed to be laid out in Land to be setled upon the said Ann only for life Remainder to the Plaintiff as Right Heir of Richard and his Right Heirs for ever according
the same that she shall release the 2000 l. per Annum within Three years after his death or else that Devise to be void The Remainder of his Lands in Berks to Sir Walter Clergyes pur vie and after in Tail Male Remainder to his Cousin Henry Monk in Tail Male Remainder to his own Right Heirs To Bevile Greenvile Son to the Earl of Bath his Freehold Lands in Surrey and Southampton for life and then in Tail Male Remainder to his Cousin Tho. Monck pur vie and then in Tail Male Remainder to his Cousin Henry Monck in Tail Male Remainder to his own right Heirs His Lands in Devon to Colonel Thomas Monck for life and then in Tail Male Remainder to his Cousin Henry Monck in Tail Male remainder to his own right Heirs All his Lands in Ireland to his Cousin Henry Monck in Tail Male with Remainder to his own right Heirs Provided That if he have any Issue all devises of any Sums of Mony except for his Funeral his Father's Monument Alms-houses and Legacies to his Executors shall be void and if he leave any Issue the premisses devised to Sir Walter Clergyes Mr. Greenvile Thomas and Henry Monck and their Issue shall go to his Issue viz. to his Sons successively in Tail Male if Daughters in Tail with Remainders to the said persons as before Provided If he leave Issue Male he deviseth to his Wife as an Additional Joynture to her Rent charge Lands in Devon and Essex for her life and makes the Dutchess during her life and in case of her death the Dutchess of Newcastle Guardians of his Children he shall have And in case it happen that Colonel Thomas Monck or any Heirs males of his Body shall live to come and be in possession of the premisses devised to him he desires they will live at Potheridge the Ancient Seat of the Family and desires his Majesty to grant them the Title of Baron Monck of Potheridge that it may remain in the Family in Memory of his Father and himself and his Service his Father had the Honour to do the Crown in the Restauration and makes the Duke of Newcastle Lord Cheney Jarvis Peirpoint Sir Walter Clergyes Sir Thomas Stringer Henry Pollexfen Esq and others Executors That the Duke gave direction to Henry Pollexfen Esq to make this Will and when drawn was fully approved of by the Duke upon mature deliberation Which Will being in Three parts he carefully lock'd up and after leaving Two parts of his Will to two persons and kept the Third he went to Jamaica That the Duke when in Jamaica heard Colonel Thomas Monck was dead in Holland sent to the Earl of Bathe Sir Tho. Siringer and others to send over for Chripher Monck the Colonels eldest Son to Educate him so as to fit him to bear the Character of one to whom he intended the greatest part of his Estate if he died without Issue In September 1688. the Duke sickned in Jamaica and there again published his said Will and declared that if he died the Box and Will should be delivered to the Dutchess and died in October following That the Dutchess at her Return from Jamaica found that the Earl of Bathe set up another Will dated 3. Aug. 1675. whereby the Remainder of the greatest part of the Estate was given to the Earl of Bathe and his Heirs and likewise a Settlement by way of Lease and Release in corroboration of that Will by which he seeks to avoid and frustrate the Will of 1687. That the Duke sent to the Earl of Bathe for the Will of 1675. if any such to have it delivered to him that he might make another Will That the Will of 1687. was Sealed at Sir Robert Claytons the same day after other Writings had been by him sealed to the Lord Chancellor Jeffreys of some Lands sold to him and that the Dutchess nor any of her Relations ever knew or heard of the said Deeds till after the Dukes death nor known to Sir Thomas Stringer who was the Dukes standing Councel and the Plaintiffs farther insist if there were such Deed yet it ought not to avoid or impeach the said last Will though the power of Revoking the same was not literally pursued yet the same in Equity ought to be taken as a Revocation and the rather for that at the making of the Will the Duke remained owner of the Estate and he lookt upon himself so to be for that he had since the said pretended Deeds sold some part of the Estate to Chancellor Jefferies without any Revocation and the Earl of Bath paid no valuable Consideration and that he ought to be protected in the enjoyment of the personal Estate and the Specifick Legacies devised to her in the Will of 1687. tho' the Will of 75. if any such be was intended by the Duke principally to hinder the discent to his next Heir and the Deeds if such there be were for the same purpose and that tho' the Deed recites to confirm the last Will of 75. yet does in several places controul it and alter it whereby and by the extraordinary strange and unprecedented Declarations Provisoes and Covenants therein the Plaintiff believes the Deeds were never executed by the Duke or if so that he was surprised therein and pray Relief in the premisses To this the Defendant makes Answer Answer and sets forth the Will of 1675. whereby the greatest part of the whole Estate was given to the Earl and his Heirs and sets forth the Considerations of his so doing as Antient Kindred and Esteem between Duke George and the Earl of Bath and several Services and good Offices that he had done the Family and likewise sets forth that being well satisfied with such his disposition of his Estate and finding that he had been often importuned to alter the same and fearing lest the repeated Practises and Arts attempted against such his Disposition might some time or other surprise him into a Compliance Consulted with Sir William Jones and other his Councel how to Obviate such practises and to settle his Estate in such manner as that it might not be avoided although for his ease he should at any time seem to yield to the Sollicitations of his near Relations whereupon in Anno 1681. the Duke makes a Settlement wherein he begins That for the assuring of the Honour Manours c. upon a Person of Honour c. and for the Corroborating and Confirming the said Will of 75. and to the end that no pretended last Will should be set up by any Person whatsoever and for the Natural Affection that he beareth to the Earl of Bath c. grants by Lease and Release several Mannors Lands and Tenements c. some in Possession and some in Remainder upon the Earl of Bath in Fee and so to Walter Clergies c. in which Deed there was this Proviso Proviso That if the Duke shall at any time during his life be minded to make void the said Indenture
hundred Pounds and Damages Rowley contra Lancaster 21 Car. 2. fo 993. THat Matthew Lancaster bequeathed to John Creeke 100 l. thus viz. Will. 50 l. Devise of Mony to be paid at a Day to come Devisee dies before the Day yet payable to his Administrator in one Month after the Expiration of his Apprenticeship and the other 50 l. within one whole year after the Expiration of the said Apprenticeship and made the Defendant Executor That the Apprenticeship expired 29 Sept. 1664. but John Creeke dying before the Legacy was paid the Defendant refuses to pay it to the Plaintiff the Administrator of the said John Creeke The Defendant insists That he paid the 50 l. due within a Month after the Expiration of the Apprenticeship and that the said John Creeke died before the whole year after the Expiration of his Apprenticeship was expired and therefore the other 50 l. was not due to the Plaintiff This Court being assisted with Judges were clear of Opinion That the said Legacy was Debitum in praesenti solvend in futuro and decreed the said 50 l. to be paid to the Plaintiff with damages Fry contra Porter 21 Car. 2. fo 568. THat the Earl of Newport Will. deceased by his Will devised to the Plaintiff the Lady Ann the Messuage called Newport House with the Appurtenances thus viz I do give and bequeath unto the Lady Ann Countess of Newport my Dear Wife all that my House called Newport-House and all other my Tenements and Hereditaments whatsoever in Middlesex for her Life and after her decease I do give and bequeath the said House and all other my Tenements and Hereditaments as aforesaid to my Grandchild the Lady Ann Knowles the Daughter of Nicholas Earl of Banbury by the Lady Isabella my late Daughter and to the Heirs of her Body lawfully to be begotten Provided always and upon Condition that my said Grandchild the Lady Ann Knowles do marry with the consent of my said Wife and of Charles Earl of Warwick and Edward Earl of Manchester or the Major part of them And in case the said Lady Ann Knowles do and shall marry without the consent of my said Wife and the Major part of my Trustees aforesaid or shall happen to depart this Life without any Issue of her Body then I will and bequeath all the said premisses unto my Grandson George Porter Son of my deceased Daughter the Lady Ann late Wife of Thomas Porter Esq and to his Heirs for ever The Bill is to be Relieved against the Forfeiture of the said Estate for not performing the said Condition in the Will and Marrying against the consent of the Trustees and the Mother Yet the said Mother was told That the Plaintiff was about to marry and said nothing to the contrary whereupon the Plaintiff married and hath Issue The Plaintiff insisting That if any Error were committed in Marrying it was through Ignorance and not Obstinacy she the Plaintiff being very young and knew not of the Proviso or Condition in the said Will and it would be very unreasonable to make the happiness of the Plaintiff to depend upon the consent of Strangers in point of Marriage to put it into their power to keep her during her life either from Marrying or from her Estate and thereby make them Masters of her Affection or Fortune and to disinherit her and her Children But the Defendant insists That the Reason of inserting the said Proviso into the said Will was that the Plaintiff the Lady Ann might be disposed of in Marriage without disparagement and therefore that she should marry with the consent of the said Countess and the two Earls or the Major part of them and of that other Clause viz. That if she married without such Consent then he gave the said House and Premisses to the said Defendant George Porter the Infant and his Heirs for ever and that the said Lady Ann having Married a person very unequal to her Fortune and without such Consent as aforesaid having little or no Estate had made a wilful breach of the said Proviso or Condition in the said Grandfathers Will Lands devised on Condition the Devisee marry with consent and limitation over Devisee marries without Consent she shall not be relieved but the Land decreed to the remainder Man and the said George Porter claims the said House to him and his Heirs by virtue of the said Condition and Limitation over to him by the said Will the construction whereof is to be made out of the Will it self and not otherwise and the said Lady Ann had notice of the said Will before marriage there being discourse of it by the Trustees to her and so the Lady Ann ought not to be relieved against the said Forfeiture or Limitation aforesaid This Court with the Judges and on perusal of Presidents are clear of Opinion and fully satisfied That the Plaintiff ought not to be relieved against the said Forfeiture and that the same was such as ought not to be relieved in Equity and dismist the Plaintiffs Bill Vide this Case in Mod. Rep. p. 300. with Councels and Judges Arguments seriatim Shalmer contra Tresham 21 Car. 2. fo 560. THe Bill is to discover the Deeds of several Lands and whether they were not made in Trust and whether the Debt demanded by the Plaintiff were not mentioned in a Schedule thereunto annex'd The Defendant pleaded Bill to discover Settlements in Trust Plea That the Defendant is a Scrivener and had taken Oath not to discover the Secrets of his Clients Overruled That he was a Scrivener by Profession and hath taken the accustomed Oath that Scriveners do before they are made Free in London whereby he is obliged not to discover the Secrets of those persons business that employ him in that Trade without their leave and that he was employed by and assisted Sir John Langham in the purchasing of the said Lands and the Writings concerning the premisses he drew and hath the Keeping thereof by the said Sir Johns Direction and so ought not to discover the said Writings contrary to his Trust nor any thing relating to this Matter This Court declared That the Oath of a Scrivener doth not oblige from a discovery more than the Oath of any other Free man of London And if it had been in the case of a Counsellor at Law the said Plea had been Insufficient in this case and Overruled the Plea saving he is not to Answer to whom he paid the Purchase Mony Alford cont Pitt 21 Car. 2. fo 181. THe Plaintiffs Suit is Demurrer Remedy at Law Award to have the benefit of an Award To which the Defendant demurred and says That the Plaintiff ought to take his Remedy at Law This Court Overruled the Demurrer Langton al' contra Tracy Astrey 21 Car. 2. fo 376. THe Bill is to have the several Debts due to the Plaintiffs being Creditors of the Defendant Roberts paid The Case is viz. That Thomas
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
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
or their Testator could not come sooner than when the Title was cleared Mean profits Decreed tho' a long time since and the Objection raised from the shortness of the former decree is not material to prejudice the Plaintiffs demand for that there could not then be any decree for profits the said Sir James pretending Title as Tenant in Tail Account for the mean profits from the time the right accrewed and that Sir Thomas was but Tenant for life so now the Right being cleared the Plaintiff ought to have an account of the mean profits from the time the Right accrewed and decreed accordingly The Defendant Appealing from the said Decree made by the Lord Chancellor Finch to the Lord Keeper North the Case was heard ab integro and the Lord Keeper on hearing the decree in 1650. and the decree of the Lord Finch read declared that there was nothing in the case but the loss of time and though the Decree in 1650. The mean profits tho' omitted in a former decree decreed now was silent as to the mean profits yet the same ought to be no Objection to the Right and though it was omitted by the Decree in 1650. yet it ought in Justice to have been decreed for the mean profits as well as for the right of the Title it being an accessary to the decree and it ought to be judged nunc pro tunc there being no Bar against it and confirmed the Decree made by the Lord Finch Girling contra Dom ' Lowther al' 34 Car. 2. fo 148. THat Sir Thomas Leigh deceased late Father of the Defendants John Thomas and Woolley Leigh became indebted to Edmond Girling deceased in several Sums of mony by Bonds and the said Girling became bound for the said Sir Thomas for several great Sums of mony against which Securities Sir Thomas gave the said Girling Counterbonds and in Hillary Term 28 Car. 2. Sir Thomas gave a Judgment of 1000 l. to the said Girling for the payment of 530 l. and in Aug. 1669. Sir Thomas made his last Will in writing and thereby devised to the Defendants Sir John Lowther John Currance and Edward Badby Executors of his said Will several Lands Lands and Tenements for the payment of his debts and to be by them sold for that purpose That the Swan Inn in St. Martins Lane being sold there ariseth a Question touching the Mony raised by such Sale whether it were well applied or not The Case being viz. That Sir Thomas Leigh upon his Marriage with Hannah Relfe Daughter of Anthony Relfe whilst he was under Age by Articles previous to the said Marriage with the said Hannah agreed to settle on himself and the said Hanuah his intended Wife and such as they should have between them Lands of 700 l. and in Consideration thereof the said Anthony Relfe was to settle and did settle upon the said Thomas and his Heirs Lands of 200 l. per Annum whereupon Sir Thomas Leigh July 1661. makes a Settlement upon himself and the said Hannah his intended Wife and their first second and other Sons in Tail his Mannor of Addington and other Lands in Addington and several Lands in Com' Surrey and Keut That afterwards in May 1665. Sir Thomas Leigh mortgaged to Mr. Peck for 2000 l. several Lands in Middlesex and Norfolk and afterwards in December 1665. those Lands and the moiety of the Swan Inn in St. Martins and the Reversion thereof were granted to Trustees upon several Trusts which by Deed 15 June 1668. appears to be performed and satisfied and thereupon on the same 15 June 1668. the said premisses were mortgaged to Sir John Lowther for 2500 l. which 2500 l. was raised and paid to Sir John Lowther out of the profits and by sale of the said Swan Inn which was formerly by voluntary Conveyance dated and setled by the said Sir Thomas Leigh upon the two Defendants Thomas and Woolley Leigh for Natural love and affection Voluntary Settlement That Sir John Lowther in April 1679. assigned the said Mortgage by conveying to one Burton and others the Mannor of Thorpe in Surrey and Shoelands and other premisses in Trust for the payment of such of the debts of Sir Thomas Leigh as should any ways incumber or disturb the Purchaser of the Swan Inn which said Lands are sufficient to pay the Plaintiffs debts and the Testators Ingagement being 1331 l. which debt is to be paid the Plaintiff by Decree of this Court The Defendants the Leighs insist That the Mony raised by the sale of the Swan Inn although paid to redeem the other Estate in mortgage to Sir John Lowther ought not to be applied so that the Land ought to be discharged of the Mortgage-mony or of what was paid to redeem the same but the said Lands ought still to be a Security for the said Mony to the use of the younger Children for whose benefit the said Swan Inn was setled and although the said Settlement was voluntary yet the same being a provision for younger Children ought not to be adjudged fraudulent as to a subsequent Judgment which the Paintiffs is or however not as to a subsequent voluntary Devise of their Father under which only the Creditors by Bond come in and therefore as to them the said mortgaged Lands ought to be charged with the said Mony raised by the sale of the said Swan Inn with Interest since it was paid to redeem the said Estate precedent to any benefit any Creditor by Bond can have out of the said Lands This Court declared Voluntary Conveyance though a provision for younger Children not to prevent satisfaction of subsequent Judgments That the said voluntary Conveyance ought not to stand in the way to prevent satisfaction of a subsequent Judgment for good Considerations and that the Monies due on the Plaintiffs Judgment and the Monies raised by sale of the Swan Inn was well applied to discharge the Mortgage on the other Estate whereby the mony due on the Judgment with Interest may be the more speedily raised by sale thereof and the mony raised by sale of the said Inn after the Judgment satisfied with Interest ought to stand secur'd for the benefit of the younger Children Mony applied to take off Mortgages satisfie Judgments and after to pay Bond-Creditors and be raised by sale of the said Estate and by Rents and Profits in the mean time precedent to the other Creditors not on Judgment and after the said Judgment and provision for the younger Children satisfied the residue to be applied to the other Creditors and decreed accordingly Comes Arglas contra Henry Muschamp 35 Car. 2. fo 524. THat Thomas Relief against over-reaching Bargains first Earl of Arglas the now Plaintiffs Father and William Earl of Arglas the Plaintiffs Brother were seised in Fee of the premisses in question and made divers Settlements thereof by which in case of failure of Issue Male of the said William the said Estate should come to