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
The Second Part OF REPORTS OF CASES Taken and Adjudged in the Court of Chancery FROM The 20th Year of King Charles II. TO THE First Year of Their present Majesties King William and Queen Mary BEING Special CASES and most of them Decreed with the Assistance of the Judges and all of them referring to the Register Books wherein are setled several Points of Equity Law and Practice To which is added The late Great CASE between the Dutchess of Albemarle and the Earl of Bathe LONDON Printed by the Assigns of Richard and Ed Atkyns Esquires for Iohn Walthoe and are to be sold at his Shop in Vine-Court Middle-Temple MDCXCIV THE PREFACE TO THE READER THE Favourable Entertainment which the First Part of these Reports met with at your Hands hath encouraged me to Present the Remainder of them to Your perusal The acceptance whereof I shall not much doubt when I consider that besides the Charm of Novelty the Cases were heard and decreed with great Deliberation and Solempnity in our own times by Persons very Eminent and Famous in their Professions and upon that account they bear with them their own Letters of Recommendation For I cannot imagin that the Chancery Causes which if of any considerable weight as usually they are being generally mixt with Law should receive a closer and more satisfactory Determination when they are Pronounced from a Cleryg man or a bare States-man than from one of that Honourable Profession To render them the more intire I have abridged the great Case of the Duke of Norfolk which hath solidly setled the perplexed Points of Perpetuities It is true The Lord Chanceller Finch differed in Opinion at that time from the Learned Judges and he was in pain to do it yet certainly there is no Common Lawyer let him Espouse his Notions never so dearly but must both admire and acquiesce in the Equity of that Case I have added an Abstract of the famous Case of Com' Mountague contra Com' de Bath with the Judges and Lord Keeper's concurrent Opinions and their Reasons briefly recited but that Cause by Appeal now depending before the Highest Judicature in the Nation and waiting the Decision of the Honourable House of Peers I do not think fit to mentiom more of it In many other excellent and useful Cases here Reported tho' they have been Argued and decreed in a Court of Equity yet a Common Lawyer may find many Points agreed and setled to good satisfaction respecting those two great Cargoes of Law-business WILLS and SETTLEMENTS But Lastly to obviate an Objection which causeth some quarrel with us How comes it to pass that after such frequent and solemn arguing of Causes in all their Niceties and Circumstantials that Decrees are so often Reverst by succeeding Chancellors I must Reply to this as that Learned Chancellor did in the above mentioned Case of the Duke of Norfolk I must be saved by my own Faith and must not Decree against my own Conscience and Reason Besides by a further Penetration into the Series of Transactions the Intentions of the Parties and the like perhaps something may arise which was not thought of or not thoroughly considered But the true and main Cause of the variety of our Opinions is the Natural Imperfections of our Faculties Uncertainty even in our own Judgments is incident to our Nature And I cannot express my Notion better than in the bold Words of that Ingenious Canonist Gomez in Regula de Triennali possessore cap. 5. Non est inconveniens judicium esse uno tempore justum postea ejus contrarium justius Et hoc malum imponi videtur mortalibus in poenam ut eorum Opiniones secundum varietatem temporum senescant intermoriantur aliaeque diversoe renasrantur deinde pubescant Talis enim est humani juris disciplina ut nulla in ea Opinio eodem statu diu stare possit Dies diei eructat verbum nox nocti indicat scientiam THE TABLE OF THE CASES A ALexander contra Alexander p. 37 Audley contra Dom ' Audley p. 156 Annand contra Honywood p. 179 Com' Arglas contra Muschamp p. 266 Attorney General contra Vernon p. 353 Ash contra Rogle p. 387 B BEauchamp contra Silverlock p. 9 Brabant contra Perne p. 36 Boulter contra Chester p. 55 Barthrop contra West p. 62 Boucher contra Antram p. 65 Broud contra Gipps p. 98 Bowyer contra Bird p. 99 Burgrave contra Whitwick p. 131 Burne contra Tynt p. 148 Brodhurst contra Richardson p. 153 Dom ' Blois contra Blois p. 162 Dom ' Bruce contra Gape p. 197 Barker contra Hill p. 218 Bonnington contra Walthall p. 219 Benson contra Bellasis p. 252 Bradbury contra Ducem Bucks p. 286 Beckford contra Beckford p. 359 Berny contra Pitt p. 396 C COm' Castlehaven contra Vnderhill p. 46 Chambers contra Greenhill p. 66 Croster contra Wister p. 67 Crip contra Bluck p. 88 Cotton contra Cotton p. 138 Civill contra Rich p. 141 Carr contra Bedford p. 146 Coles contra Hancock p. 210 Com' Craven contra Knight p. 226 Coventry contra Hall p. 259 Carvill contra Carvill p. 301 D DArrel contra Whitchcot p. 59 Dethick contra Banks p. 92 Dowse contra Percival p. 248 Dom ' Daeres contra Chute p. 245 Durston contra Sandys p. 398 Dixon contra Read p. 21 Com' Dorset contra Powle p. 411 E EVery contra Gold p. 1 Eyre contra Good p. 34 Episcop ' Sarum contra Nosworthy p. 60 Elvard contra Warren p. 192 Eyre contra Hastings p. 273 F FRy contra Porter p. 26 Floyer contra Hedgingham p. 56 Feake contra Brandsby p. 101 Fenwick contra Woodroofe p. 363 G GErman contra Dom ' Colston p. 137 Dom ' Grey contra Colvile p. 143 Green contra Rook p. 166 Glenham contra Statvile p. 193 Girling contra Dom ' Lowther p. 262 Griffith contra Jones p. 394 H HAle contra Aston p. 35 Hunton contra Davies p. 44 Hunt contra Jones p. 56 Hooker contra Arthur p. 62 Howard contra Hooker p. 81 Harmer contra Brook p. 92 Hodkin contra Blackman p. 103 Hethersel contre Hales p. 158 Howard contra Duke of Norfolk p. 229 Hall contra Dench p. 297 Hallily contra Kirtland p. 360 I JOlley contra Willis p. 137 Jones contra Henley p. 361 K DOm ' Kemp contra Kemp p. 63 Knight contra Atkyns p. 400 Kettleby contra Lamb p. 404 L LAngton contra Tracy p. 30 Lance contra Norman p. 79 Leech contra Leech p. 100 Lawrence contra Berny p. 127 Lambert contra Greene p. 213 Lucking contra Rushworth ibid. Langton contra North p. 271 M MOsely contra Maynard p. 17 Macklow contra Wilmot p. 18 Malpas contra Vernon p. 45 Monnius contra Dom ' Monnius p. 68 Mosely contra Mosely p. 105 Morgan contra Scudamore p. 134 Maddocks contra Wren p. 209 Magistr ' c. Vniversity Oxon ' contra Foxcroft p. 244 Massingberd contra Ash p. 275 Moore contra Hart p.
prejudicial to the King or his Government which the Affidavit doth not specifie and if that were yet no Writ doth regularly lie in this Case against a Lay-man to find Security as this Writ is but only against a Clergy-man neither is the Writ Indorsed as formally it ought to be Supersedeas and therefore ought to be superseded and several Cases were offered and Presidents produced on the behalf of the Defendants But the Plaintiff insisted The Causes of a Ne exeat Regnum that by the Affidavit of Sir John Read the Defendant conveying and making over his Estate to others standing out an Excommunication and absconding his person and giving out That he intends to go beyond the Seas the said Writ is well warranted and for Justification thereof several Cases and Presidents were urged and it appearing that the only matter which carries any countenance or pretence of irregular issuing the Writ that it ought to be for a Clergy-man to find Security and not for a Lay-man is an Opinion taken up in a Posthumous Work of the Lord Coke 3 Inst 179. being called his 3d Institutes contrary to the general Authorities Presidents and Practice of granting Writs of Ne exeat Regnum in former and later Times which are usual against a Lay-man to find Security as well as a Clergy-man or else there can be no Writ at all to be found in the Register against a Lay-man to find Security in any case Lay-men to find Security as well as Clergy-men upon a Ne exeat Regnum or any Ne exeat Regnum against a Lay man neither is there in the Register any such form of Indorsing the Writ as is suggested but what is inserted in the Register is but a Note of some Observer So that his Lordship with the Judges are of Opinion upon the whole Matter that there is no ground to grant a Supersedeas of the said Writ of Ne exeat Regnum but that the same was well granted and ought to stand and Ordered it accordingly Dixon contra Read 20 Car. 2. fo 46. 561. THe Bill is No relief against a Bond entred into to a Solicitor to pay 100 l. when a Verdict should be recovered That the Plaintiff being Sued by the Defendant Read in the Sheriffs Court in London upon a Bond of 200 l. for the payment of 100 l. to the said Defendant by the Plaintiff when the said Defendant being a Solicitor should recover a Verdict on the behalf of one Thrale upon which Bond though the Defendant was so far from being instrumental in getting any such Verdict that he acted for Thrale's Adversary yet the Defendant hath gotten a Verdict on the said Bond Whereupon the Plaintiff removed the Cause into the Mayor's Court and from thence into this Court by Certiorari and the Plaintiff according to proceedings in such cases proved his Suggestions Yet the Defendant without a Procedendo Procedendo hath removed the Proceedings back out of the Mayor's Court into the Sheriffs Court and hath there taken out Execution and taken the Plaintiffs Bail thereupon and levied 102 l. This Cause was heard by the Master of the Rolls who saw no cause in Equity to Relieve the Plaintiff against the Penalty and Interest of the said Bond. This Cause came to a Re hearing before the Lord Chancellor being assisted with the Lord Chief Justice Hales who were of Opinion with the Master of the Rolls and confirmed his Decree Smith contra Holman 20 Car. 2. fo 192. THat the Defendant caused the Plaintiffs Bail at Law to be Arrested soon after the Plaintiff and Defendant had joyned in a Commission for Examining of Witnesses which was for the same Matter here in question and also about two days before the Execution of the Commission the said Defendant caused the Plaintiff to be Arrested when he was preparing for the said Commission so that the Plaintiff could not execute the same The Plaintiff prays That the Defendant for such his Abuse Plaintiff two days before the Commission for Examination of Witnesses was arrested by the Defendant and in Execution ordered to be discharged and the Defendant to pay Costs and be at the charge of a New Commission being against the ancient Priviledge of this Court to Suitors that are in the management of their Causes in this Court may stand Committed and pay the Cost of the last Commission and damages sustained by the said Arrest The Defendant insisted he was ignorant of such Priviledge and that the Plaintiff was now in Execution This Court in favour of the Desendant spared the Commitment but ordered him to pay the Plaintiff Costs of the last Commission as also his costs and damages sustained by reason of the Arrest Imprisonment and Prosecution thereon and referred it to a Master of this Court to Tax and that the Plaintiff giving a new Judgment for the debt in question the Defendant shall at his the Defendants Charges presently release and discharge the said Plaintiff out of Execution and the Defendant to be at the charges of a New Commission and the Plaintiff to take an Injunction till Hearing of this Cause Wiseman contra Foster 20 Car. 2. fo 731. THe Plaintiffs Father George Brigges by Will devised to the Plaintiff Ann 500 l. for her Portion which was appointed to be paid to her at the Age of One and twenty years or day of Marriage and made the Defendant Dame Ann Foster his then Wife and his Son George his Executors and by a subsequent Clause in his Will declared That it should be in the power of his Executors to order and dispose of the Plaintiffs Portion according to their discretion to the use of the rest of the Children unless the Plaintiff should marry by the advice and consent of the Defendant Dame Ann and others who were Overseers of his Will or the greater part of them And the Defendants insist That the Plaintiff hath Married without such consent therefore ought to have but 250 l. Whereas the Plaintiff insists That the said Clause was intended only in terrorem and awe to the Plaintiff Ann to induce her to take heed how she married and not that she should lose any part of her Portion so as she married one who deserved the same which she hath done with the consent of the Major part of the Overseers The Defendants insist Portion to be paid on Marriage with consent of c. Some consent and some not yet decreed to be paid That the Plaintiff marrying as aforesaid ought to have but 250 l. as by the Memorandum in the Will and the rest to be distributed amongst the other Children of the Testator But the Plaintiff insists That in this case there was not by the Will any devise over to the said other Children This Court upon Reading the Proofs touching the approbation of the Major part of the Overseers and their consent to the Plaintiffs marriage decreed the Defendants to pay the Five
Plaintiff to pay interest for for the 5000 l. to 1641 at 8 l. per Cent. and from 41 to 49 the certain profits of the Mortgaged premisses to go in discharge of the interst till that time and that if the remaining interest with the 5000 l. should in 49 amount to 7000 l. then the Plaintiff to pay Interest for 7000 l. else only for so much as the principal and Interest according to the Statutes in force This Cause was again Reheard by the Lord Chancellor Shaftsbury assisted with Judge Vaughan and Judge Ransford The Defendant insisted that setting of the interest against the certain profits from 41 to 49 as aforesaid was a great advantage to the Plaintiff and that after so long a time the Plaintiff ought not to be permitted to redeem This Court nevertheless was satisfied That the Plaintiff ought to redeem and the Matters now in Controversie being Whether the certain Profits of the premisses shall go against the Interest from 41 to 49 or not and whether the Plaintiff shall pay Interest for any more than the 50000 l. first lent or not and what Interest he shall pay at least during the hard times of War This Court on hearing Presidents was clear of Opinion The certain Profits of the premisses set against the Interest That the Setting the certain Profits of the premisses against the Interest from 41 to 49 ought to be discharged and decreed the same accordingly And touching that Point for what Monies the Plaintiff shall pay Interest either for the 5000 l. only or any greater Sum. This Court with the Judges were of Opinion That the Plaintiff ought not to pay Interest for any greater Sum than only for the 5000 l. the Original Mortgages This Court declaring there is no Reason to give Interest upon Interest Interest upon Interest and that the now Defendant ought not to be in any better condition than Sir Abraham Dawes the first Mortgagee Crisp contra Bluck 25 Car. 2. fo 357. THis Case comes to be heard upon a Bill of Review Bill of Review and an Appeal from a Decree made by the Lord Chancellor Shaftsbury the Plaintiffs Original Bill being to be relieved against a Bond of 1600 l. penalty for payment of 1000 l. and Interest entred by the Plaintiffs Father the Testator and others to William Bluck the younger in 1642. The Defendant commenced Suit on the said Bond in 1662. Bond and Judgment after upon it and the Principal and Interest far surmounted the Penalty when Judgment was entred how payment of Monies shall be applied in such case and had Judgment thereupon against the Plaintiffs Father only and the Principal and Interest due on the said Bond far surmounting the Penalty when Judgment was obtained and the Defendant being 20 years kept out of his Mony but having received several Sums in part since the Action at Law brought it was decreed That whatever Monies were received before the Judgment actually entred should be taken in discharge of the Interest of the said 1000 l. Original debt and that the Defendant should be satisfied after the Judgment entred the whole Mony thereupon recovered with damages from the time the Judgment was actually entred deducting what he had received since the actual entry of the Judgment and allowing his Costs at Law and moderate Costs in this Court And it was found that the Judgment was not actually entred till the Vacation after Michaelmass Term 1662. and so only 250 l. paid in November 1662. Whether Mony paid shall be applied to discharge Interest of the Original debt or towards satisfaction Recovered by Judgment on the same Bond. Judgment when said to be entred was accounted Interest of the Original debt and not towards the Mony recovered by the Judgment and the Account was so setled and decreed and the Mony paid accordingly Yet for Reversal of the said Decree the now Plaintiff for Error assigns that the same tends to the invalidating of the Course of the Court of Kings Bench it being by the Decree admitted that the said Judgment was entred in the Vacation after Michaelmass Term 1662. and not before Whereas it is evident by the Records of the Kings-Bench the said Judgment was entred on Record in Michaelmass Term 1662. and by construction of Law is supposed and presumed to be Recorded the first day of that Term against which Record no Evidence or Averment ought to be admitted and all Monies paid after the first day of that Term ought in Equity to be applied towards satisfaction of the Judgment and so the 250 l. paid in November 1662. in part of a debt in question ought not to go to satisfie the Interest but in part to discharge the Principal The Lord Chancellor Shaftsbury was of Opinion If entred before the Effoin-day of the subsequent Term ought to be accounted a Judgment of the preceding Term. That no Notice could be taken of any actual entry of any Judgment at Law but that every Jugment whensoever entred if before the Essoin day of the subsequent Term ought to be accounted a Judgment of the first day of the Term before and allowed and held the said Error to be good and decreed the 250 l. paid in Nov. 1662. should go and be applied as part of satisfaction of the 1600 l. and damages due on the Judgment and what other Monies were paid by any other of the Obligors their Heirs Executors Administrators or Assigns since the 20th of October 1662. if not paid on other account shall be applied in further satisfaction of the said Judgment first to discharge the Interest and then to sink the Principal and as to so much did reverse the said Decree and the Defendant appealed from this said Decree to the Lord Keeper Finch and insisted That by his Answer to the Original Bill said when the 250 l. was paid the Judgment was not entred and presently after Hearing the Original Cause the late Lord Keeper Bridgman calling to his Assistance the Master of the Rolls who declared That the Defendant should not account for any Mony as received on the Judgment until the said Judgment which was his Security was really and actually entred if the Plaintiff insisted as before which was Over-ruled and the Plaintiff then brought a Bill of Review to which the Defendant pleaded and demurred and thereupon the Lord Bridgman declared the Decree to be Just as to the 250 l. and the Decree made by the Lord Shaftsbury is to unravel the Account setled and to charge the Defendant with 4000 l. when by the Original Bill or Bills of Review they do not charge him with above the Penalty of the said Judgment This Court now declared That the Examination of the time of the actual Entry of the Judgment in this Case Examination of the actual entry of a Judgment at Law only intended to inform the Court and not to impeach the Judgment did not impeach the Judgment but only to guide the
the hazard and contingency of the said Adventure Mortgaged and the length of time since the Mortgage the Plaintiff ought to be admitted to a Redemption of the said Adventure Sowton contra Cutler and Clerke 27 Car. 2. fo 676. THe Bill is to call the Defendant Cutler to an account for Wares delivered him and Monies paid to and for him amounting to 3000 l. Foreign Attachment and to be releived against an Attachment in the Lord Mayors Court by the Defendant Clerke whereby he Attached 2000 l. in the Plaintiffs hands supposing the Plaintiff to be so much indebted to the Defendant Cutler and that Cutler is indebted to Clerke in a a greater Sum So the Plaintiff Exhibited an English Bill in the Mayors Court for Relief therein upon which Bill the Plaintiff could not proceed his Witnesses living out of the Jurisdictions of that Court so the Plaintiff prays a Certiorari to remove the said Proceedings into this Court The Defendant Clerke hath pleaded Custom of London That by the Custom of the City of London any Creditor in the Name of any other person may make an Attachment of his own Mony in the hands of his Debtor it not being material whether such Creditor be really indebted to the person so Attaching And the said Clerke further pleaded That the said English Bill was to the same effect with this Bill and is not dismist and demurred to that part which prays a Certiorari to remove the said Proceedings on the Attachment and English Bill for that it is not practicable to remove Records out of a Latin Court to an English Court which cannot hold the Plea thereof nor for the Plaintiff to remove his own Bill by Certiorari This Court held the said Plea to be Insufficient No Certiorari allowed to remove Proceedings by English Bill in the Lord Mayors Court into Chancery and Over-ruled the same and the Defendant Clerke to answer that part of the Bill But as to that part of the Bill which requires the Certiorari held the Demurrer to be good and ordered a Procedendo to the Lord Mayor c. that they may proceed upon the same Attachment but at the same time an Injunction to Issue to stay the Defendants proceedings on the said Attachment in question Newport contra Kinaston 27 Car. 2. fo 517. THe Point in difference arising upon the Will of the Lady Katherine Leveson Legacy the Question being Whether 500 l. mentioned in her Will be thereby devised to Mrs. Katherine Newport or Mrs. Snead who were both her Grand-daughters it being thus exprest in the said Will viz. To my Kinswoman the Lady Diana Newport Wife to my Lord Newport I bequeath my Diamond Pendants which cost 400 l. and to her Daughter Mrs. Katherine Newport my God-daughter a Jewel set with Diamonds wishing her all happiness and 500 l. to my God daughter Mrs. Katherine Snead I give and bequeath a Diamond Bodkin and an Emrod Border I also give her as a Token of my Love to her self a power to alter or add to her said Will and by a Codicil annexed to her Will and made part thereof And after a Legacy given to Mr. Richard Newport of 400 l. in Gold it follows thus viz. Also I give unto his Sister Mrs. Katherine Newport my God-daughter 500 l. in Silver And after two other Legacies intervening it is thus exprest viz. Also I give unto my God daughter Katherine Snead 100 l. more than I have given her in my Will by which said Will and Codicil the said Mrs. Katherine Newport doth conceive that there is two 500 l. Upon the Construction of the Words of a Will two 500 Pounds Legacies to one person decreed devised unto her 500 l. by her Will and 500 l. in Silver by the Codicil and the Executors scruple to pay the same for that the said Mrs. Katherine Snead doth claim the said 500 l. given by the Will to belong unto her so that Mrs. Katherine Newport seeks to have the two 500 ls by the Will and Codicil But Mrs. Snead insists That the 500 l. given by the Will as aforesaid belongs to her and is so intended and not to Mrs. Newport by the most Grammatical and reasonable Construction of the Will and Codicil This Court upon Reading of the said Will was fully satisfied both by Construction of the said Will and by the Intention of the said Lady Leveson that both the 500 l. given by the said Will and the 500 l. given by the Codicil were given and do belong to the said Mrs. Newport and decreed the said Executors to pay her the 1000 l. accordingly Wyrall contra Hall 27 Car. 2. fo 516. THe Testator made his Will A good Will though no Executor named but named no Executor This Court declared the Will to be a good Will Price contra Evans 27 Car. 2. fo 460. THe Plaintiffs Title is under an Occupant Title under an Occupant demurred to and allowed The Defendant demurred This Court allowed the Demurrer for that a Title under an Occupant this Court will not Countenance nor give any Relief thereof Lambert contra Greene 27 Car. 2. fo 122. THe Defendant Cicily Greene demandeth an Allowance for a Third part of a Tenement and Ground for the Remainder of a Term of 99 years The Case is thus viz. For 80 l. the same were Assigned in 1655. Lease not a customary Chattel to Henry Hall for Remainder of a Term of 99 years in Trust for the Defendants Testator William Greene and the Remainder Expectant upon the said Term conveyed to the said Testator and his Heirs which Demand is submitted to the Judgment of this Court This Court declared That the said Lease was not a Customary Chattel and would not allow the Defendant's Demands Lucking contra Rushworth 28 Car. 2. fo 801. THat John Pincheon deceased After a Statute acknowledged and a Mortgage the Conisors Trustees renew the Leases in their own Names yet Decreed liable to the Statute borrowed of the Plaintiffs Father 4000 l. for which he mortgaged Freehold and Copy-hold Lands and also for farther Security entred into a Statute but the Terms in the Leases being expired the Defendants as Trustees have renewed the said Leases with the Colledge in their own Names in Trust for the Children of Pincheon and so deny the same are liable to the Plaintiffs debt This Court was satisfied the Plaintiffs debt being secured by Statute as well as by Mortgage ought to be satisfied out of all the Estate of the said Pincheon in Law or Equity and that the Renewals of the said Leases in the Names of the Trustees ought not to shelter or protect the Estate against the Plaintiffs debt for that though the Plaintiffs Mortgage did bind but a particular part of the Estate yet the Statute did bind the whole Estate and the Statute binding the whole Estate in its own nature though no mention were made of subjecting the same by the Will to the
Defendant for 99 years after his death upon Trust in Case he left no Son or such as should die before 21 without Heirs Males and should leave one or more Daughters for raising of 12000 l. if but one Daughter for such Daughter and if two or more Daughters then 20000 l. to be raised for their portions to be equally divided between them and to be due and payable at their respective Ages of 21 years or days of Marriage and the said George died leaving no Son and having only three Daughters viz. Vrsula Elizabeth and one Ann Stawell who died since her Father and that the said Testator George his Relict married the Defendant Seymore and she on the death of her Daughter Ann took the Administration of her Estate and also soon after died leaving the portion of the said Ann in the said 20000 l. Un administrated and Administration of the said Anns Estate was granted to the said Vrsula and Elizabeth her Sister who are intituled to the said Anns personal Estate and that the said 20000 l. ought to be raised by the said Trustees out of the Lands setled as aforesaid but the Defendants the Trustees insist That by the words of the Will it is dubious whether the whole 20000 l. ought to be raised or any more than 12000 l. When Land to be charged with portion or not upon the words of the Will the said Ann being dead unmarried and before 21. And the Defendant the Heir insisted That as the Case is the portions of the said Ann ought not to be charged on the said Lands so the only Question before the Court being whether the Trustees shall raise 12000 l. or 20000 l. for the said Plaintiffs Vrsula and Elizabeth It appearing plainly to this Court that by the words of the said Will that if the said Testator George had two Daughters or more Daughter then 20000 l. should be raised This Court is of Opinion and declared that the Lands ought to be charged with the 20000 l. and the payment thereof to the Plaintiffs Vrsula and Elizabeth Lawrence contra Berny 29 Car. 2. fo 156. THis Case is on a Bill of Review Bill of Review This Court declared they would not make Error by construction and where a Decree is capable of being executed by the ordinary Process and Forms of the Court and where things come to be in such a State and Condition after a Decree made that it requires an original Bill and a second Decree upon that before the first Decree can be executed In the first Case whatever the inniqity of the first Decree may be yet till it be reversed the Court is bound to assist it with the utmost process the course of the Court will bear for in all this the Conscience of the present Judge is not concerned because it is not his Act but rather his sufferance that the Act of his Predecessor should have its due effect by ordinary Forms But where the common Process of the Court will not serve but a new Bill and a new Decree is become nenessary to have the Execution of a former Decree is in its self unjust there this Court desired to be excused in making in its own Act to build upon such ill Foundations and charging his own Conscience with promoting an apparent injustice and to this condition hath the Plaintiff Lawrence brought himself for he forbore to apply himself to this Court to support him as one that claimed under the Decree in 1650 or to pray an Injunction to stop Berneys proceeding at Law but stay'd till Berney had recovered the Land by a Tryal at Bar Where no ordinary Process upon the first Decree will serve but there must be a new Bill to pray Execution of the first Decree by a second Decree and been put into Possession by the Sheriff and now no ordinary Process upon the first Decree will serve but he is drawn to a new Bill to pray Execution of the first Decree by a second Deree and this obligeth the Court to examin the grounds of the first Decree before they make the same Decree again And this Court was not of this Opinion alone but it was also the Opinion of others that were before him who had made several Presidents in like Cases and would not enter further into Arguments of the Errors Lawrences Bill was an original Bill to Execute two Decrees in 1650 and 1651 and the Defendant Berney now also Plaintiff it being cross Causes brought his Bill of Review to Reverse the said Decree c. as Unjust and Erroncous That the first Decree by the Lord Coventry in 30 Car. 1. decreed a Sale of the premisses for a performance of the Trust that in 1650 a Decree was made to frustrate the Lord Coventry's Decree Priske contra Palmer 29 Car. 2. fo 323. THis Court was satisfied the Plaintiff had a quiet enjoyment for a long time and declared Want of a surrender Aided That notwithstanding a Surrender is wanting yet the Plaintiffs Title ought to be supplied in Equity and decreed the Plaintiff to enjoy the premisses and the perpetual Injunction to stay all proceedings at Law Woolstenholm contra Swetnam 29 Car. 2. fo 146. THat Thomas Swetnam deceased Settlement being possessed of a Personal Estate and making provision for his Grand-Children being the Children of Thomas his eldest Son being five in number whereof Peter Swetnam was one did by Deed authorize the Defendant William Swetnam who was his second Son and the Defendant Thomas Swetnam who was his Grandchild to receive 32 l. Rent which was an Arrear of 16 l. per Annum Annuity of Foster's Farm in Trust to be divided amongst his said five Grandchildren at the Age of 21 and the said Thomas the Grandfather by some other Deed charged his whole Lands on a Settlement thereof on the Defendant Thomas with the payment of 1000 l. equally amongst his said five Grandchildren whereof the said Peter was one and in further kindness to the said Peter in 1657. by Will gave him 100 l. to be paid out of the Personal Estate and made the Defendant William his Executor and the said Peters Father to increase his Fortune put out several Sums of Mony in the said William's Name and deposited other Mony in the said Defendants hands for the said Peters use and by his Will surther gave to Peter 30 l. and Peter married the Plaintiff Martha and by his Will devised all his Estate to the said Martha whereby the Plaintiff is intituled to the said Devisee and to the said Peters shate in the 1000 l. so to be relieved for the Sum is the Bill The Defendant William insists That Thomas the Father of Peter died possessed of a Personal Estate of 266 l. and the Defendant as his Executor possest it 1000 l. to be raised and divided amongst five Children one dies before distribution the Survivors shall have his share and not the Devisee of him that is dead and paid
his debts being 100 l. and says that the 1000 l. was given to be divided as afore said and as the Defendant William should think fit and that Peter dying before any distribution was made to him thereof the Defendant William ought not to distribute the same amongst the other four and no part of it ought to come to the Plaintiff This Court declared That no part of the 1000 l. doth belong to the Plaintiff in Right of the said Peter or otherwise and dismist the Bill Nance contra Coke 29 Car. 2. fo 64. THe Plaintiff seeks Redemption of a Mortgage made the 17th of Jac. 1. Release pleaded against the Redemption of a Mortgage and allowed the Defendant pleaded a Release of the Mortgagors Interest in Anno 1620. This Court after so long time and such Release could not admit the Plaintiff to Redeem though the premisses were Mortgaged for 376 l. and worth now to be sold 1500 l. Burgrave contra Whitwick al' 29 Car. 2. fo 173. THat George Whitwick deceased Will. having Issue George his only Son and Elizabeth and Martha the Wife of the Defendant Curtis by Will bequeathed to the said Elizabeth 600 l. to be paid unto her as therein after is expressed and to the said Martha 600 l. in like manner and gave the residue of his Personal Estate to the said George his Son to be employed as should be afterwards expressed in his Will and also gave to his said Son and his Heirs all Lands whatsoever and Willed That if either of his said Children should dye in their Minority that the surviving should be Heirs to the deceased in equal portions but if all should die without Issue then he gave his Lands to George the Son of Humfrey Whitwick with Remainders over and ordered the said Portions in convenient time to be laid out in Lands for his said Children and till Lands purchased the Executors to retain the Mony so long as the Overseers should see good at 5 l. per Cent. and made the Defendant Humfrey Whitwick Executor That George the Son died Intestate under Age unmarried that no Land hath been purchased by the Executor That Martha attained 21. and received her Portion and also the Moiety of the residue of the Personal Estate bequeathed to George the Son but refuses to pay Elizabeth her 600 l. and Moiety of the said residue of the Personal Estate she being yet a Minor under 21. yet she is married to the other Plaintiff Burgrave who can give a Discharge The Defendant insiststs According to the meaning of the Will he ought not to pay Elizabeth till the Age of 21 years for in case she die before the said Martha ought to have the other Moiety of the residue of the Personal Estate and he is advised there is a possibility of Survivorship of the Plaintiff Elizabeths Portion and Moiety of the residuary of the Personal Estate and that if he should pay it to the said Elizabeth and she should die before 21 the Defendant Martha may compel him to pay it again But the Plaintiff insists That the Moiety of the residuary Personal Estate devised to the said George not being laid out in Lands falls to the Plaintiff within the words of that Clause in the Will that gives the residue by equal portions to the surviving and so no further Survivorship intended This Court was of Opinion Residuary part of the Personal Estate not subject to any contingency of Survivorship but the Interest presently vested and declared the residuary part of the Personal Estate is not subject to any contingency of Survivorship but that the Interest of that presently vested in the Plaintiff upon the death of the said George the Son and ordered the Defendant the Executor to pay one Moiety of the residuary Personal Estate and in case Elizabeth die before 21 then the 600 l. to be paid to Martha which in the mean time is to be kept in the Defendants hands Morgan contra Scudamore 29 Car. 2. fo 658. THe Plaintiffs being Customary Tenants of the Mannor Renewing Copies upon reasonable Fines in which Mannor the Tenants hold Estates by Copy to them and their Heirs by the words Sibi Suis for 99 years yielding a Rent paying a Herriot and doing of Suit and Service c. And by the Custom of the said Mannor the Lords upon Expiration of every Estate ought to renew upon reasonable Fines and which said Estates by the Custom of the Mannour do descend from Heir to Heir and their Estates to be renewed for reasonable Fines they being expired which the Lords of the Mannor refuse demanding more than the Fee for a Fine whereas two years value was as much as ever was or ought to be given or demanded The Defendant the Lord of the said Mannor insists that there was such a Custom to renew for 99 years but the Fines always at the will of the Lord and such as the Plaintiffs could agree with him for there being no benefit to come to the Lord during the 99 years so the question is whether the Lord shall be at liberty to set what Fine he please or be restreined therein by this Court it appearing that the Fines are Arbitrary The Plaintiffs insist that though the Fines are Arbitrary yet the same are by Law supposed to be reasonable and that in some Cases the Law had adjudged above two years value to be an unreasonable Fine and the Defendant had demanded 10 and 12 years value for a Fine which is very extravagant and the will of the Lord in this Case ought to be limited The Defendant insists that the Plaintiffs Estates and Terms for 99 years expired many years before the Bill Exhibited some of them 30 and others 11 or 12 years since in the life-life-time of the Defendants Father and some of the Plaintiffs Estates have been granted to others and Fines levied thereon and that the Tenants of the said Mannor do not during the 99 years pay any Fines upon death or alteration so nothing is due to the Lord for 99 years together so that the Defendant insists nine or ten years purchase is a reasonable Custom This Court declared The Lord of a Mannor limited to two years value for a Fine the will of the Lord ought to be limited and that the Plaintiffs onpayment of two years value shall be admitted to their said Estates and hold the same against the Defendant and all claiming under him and that the Plaintiffs shall renew such Estates within one year after the Expiration of their Term in case they be of Age Tenants Decree to renew within one year after the Leases expired or within the four Seas at such time or otherwise within one year after such respective Tenant shall attain the Age of 21 or return from beyond the Seas or else such Tenant shall be for ever foreclosed of any help or benefit and and then the Lord is at liberty to dispose thereof Warwick contra
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-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
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
he died about six Weeks after to whom the Lady is Administratrix The Judges Opinion upon both these Cases WE have heard the Case of Massingberd and Ash Remainders of a Term successively in a Deed of Trust being limited and confined to fall within 21 years are good and no Perpetuities referred to us Argued by Council on both sides both upon the Deed of Trust and upon the Will and are all of Opinion That the whole weight of the Case rests upon the Deed of Trust and that the Will though it have some Clauses in it which if they were substantive of themselves would alter the case yet as it is penned and the Clauses all bound up with relation to the Deed of Trust it does not And we are likewise of Opinion That all the Remainders and Contingencies in the Deed of Trust being limited and confined to fall within the compass of 21 years are good and that therefore the remainder of the Term ought to be decreed to the Plaintiff Sir William Massingberd Febr. 17. 1684. Thomas Jones Creswell Levings J. Charlton T. Street The Lord Keeper declared himself of the same Opinion with the Judges That the Remainder of the said Terms after the death of the said Dame Elizabeth were good Remainders in Law and that the Plaintiff Sir William ought to enjoy the premisses for the remainder of the said Terms accordingly and decreed the same Nodes contra Batle 35 Car. 2. fo 106. THe Bill is That the Defendant may redeem or be fore closed and the Defendant being served with a Subpoena refuseth to appear and sits out all process of Contempt to a Serjeant at Arms retorned and cannot be apprehended The Plaintiff prays the Bill may be taken pro Confesso This Court declared In regard the Defendant hath not appeared The Bill not to be taken pro Confesso if the Defendant hath not appear'd but a Sequestration shall issue out against him this Court could not decree the Bill pro Confesso but ordered a Sequestration against his real and personal Estate until he cleared his Contempt Moor contra Hart 35 Car. 2. fo 60. THat a Treaty of Marriage was had between the Plaintiff and Ann his Wife Marriage Agreement the Defendants Daughter who promised to give with her 4000 l. but when the Defendant perceived them to be mutually ingaged began to recede from his Promise which the Plaintiff finding a Letter was wrote to the Defendant by a Friend of the Plaintiffs desiring him to be plain and ascertain what Portion he would give the Plaintiff with his Daughter and then the Defendant agreed to give 1500 l. down and 500 l. more at his death if she should have Issue and both Sums to be charged on his Estate at Creaton and Wapingham which Agreement was in Writing and signed by the Defendant and he did in Answer to the said former Letter express and declare as much under his Hand and thereupon the Marriage took effect But the Defendant pretended he never made any such Agreement and that the Plaintiff married his Daughter without his Consent but confesseth he received a Letter from one Reeve a Friend of the Plaintiffs wherein he desired the Defendant to be clear and say what he would lay down upon the Nail in marriage with his Daughter to the Plaintiff and what he would secure to be paid at his death and that he sent a Letter to Reeve in Answer wherein he acknowledg'd the Plaintiffs deserts exceeded his ability and with all plainness acquainted him he would give her 1500 l. in present out of his Estate at Creaton and 500 l. more at his death if she should have Issue then living but that afterwards Mr. Reeves sent a Letter in Answer to that whereby the Treaty and Proposals are absolutely waved and the Defendant never further Treated but the Marriage was had without his Consent and without any Agreement in Writing or Settlement and therefore he insists upon the Act for prevention of Frauds and Perjuries To which the Plaintiff insists The last Letter sent by Reeve was no manner of the Treaty or Proposal in the former Letters in Jan. 1680. This Court Letters under ones Hand shall amount to a good Agreement within the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries on reading the several Letters sent by Reeve to the Defendant in the behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendants Answer thereunto This Court is fully satisfied the Plaintiff upon his Marriage became well intituled to the 1500 l. agreed by the Defendant under his own Hand to be paid to the Plaintiff as his Wives Portion out of his Estate at Creaton and decreed accordingly Bradbury contra Ducem Bucks 36 Car. 2. fo 401. THis Court did declare Interest upon Interest decreed That the Plaintiffs ought to have Interest for their Interest Mony from time to time when it is a stated Sum. Dom ' Pawlet contra Dom ' Pawlet 36 Car. 2. fo 516. This is upon a Case stated viz. THat John Trust for payment of Debts Maintenance of younger Children and raising Portions late Lord Pawlet on Marriage with the Plaintiff the Lady Susanna his second Wife and of her Portion setled a Joynture of 1000 l. per Annum on her and afterwards having 3 Children viz. the Defendant the now Lord Pawlet and Susanna and Vere Pawlet by Deed conveyed Lands to Trustees and their Heirs viz. to the use of the said Lord Pawlet for life charged with Portions for his Daughters by the Lady Essex Pawlet his former Wife and after the death of the said Lord Pawlet to the use of Francis Pawlet and others for 500 years on Trust that they should after the commencement of the 500 years out of the Profits or by Leases or other lawful ways out of the premisses allow the now Defendant Maintenance and also sufficient to pay all the late Lord Pawlets debts and maintenance for the younger Children and after that to raise Mony to pay the younger Childrens Portions in such manner and time as the said Lord Pawlet should by any Writing or last Will appoint and in default of such limitation or appointment the Trustees to raise 4000 l. a piece for every younger Son and 4000 l. a piece for every Daughter of the said Lord Pawlet by the Lady Sasanna to be paid at their Ages or day of Marriages if such Portions could conveniently be raised and if not then so soon after as the same could be with this further That every younger Son and Daughter should have Maintenance till Portions paid and after all the said Sums raised the Remainder of the 500 years to be surrendred to whom the immediate Reversion belonged which is now the Defendant That the late Lord Pawlet by Will in 1677. and published at the same time when the said Deed was executed gave to his said two Daughters Susanna and Vere Pawlet 4000 l. for their respective Portions to be paid them as the said Deed directed and made the
Countess who conceives her self to be Intituled as Grandmother to an equal share with any of his Brothers and Sisters and insists That the said Lady Katherine dying within less than a year after the Intestate Thomas Wentworth she was not by the said Statute Intituled to any share of the said Personal Estate her supposed Right being meerly a thing in possibility and Expectation which vanished by her death within the year And the Defendants insist That the Countess before her Marriage with the Plaintiff the Earl viz. in 1673. granted Lands to Trustees for 21 years if she so long lived in Trust out of those Lands and other Lands late of Sir John Wentworth to pay her 200 l. per Annum till the said Thomas was 12 years of Age for his Maintenance and after till 21 so much as the said Trustees thought fit and the Residue for the benefit of the said Thomas his Heirs and Assigns That the said Defendants with the Countesses Approbation out of the moneys arising by the said Trust made several Purchases in their own Names and declared the Trust thereof for the said Thomas Wentworth and his Heirs and the Defendant Dame Dorothy made other Purchases in her own Name with the said Thomas his momey which she received in Trust for him and insists that those moneys so invested in those Purchases in the life-time of the said Thomas in Trust are not nor at his death were any part of his Personal Estate but the Lands descend to the Defendant John Wentworth as his Heir That Sir John Wentworth died in 1671. and left a great Personal Estate which came to the Earl and Countess on their Marriage and that Sir John Wentworth died Intestate within the Province of York the Defendant John Wentworth being his younger Son unpreferred became Intituled to a third part of his Estate equally with his Widow by the Custom of that Province and by force of the said Act for setling Intestate Estates Thomas and John became Intituled with her to the other third part The Defendants farther insist That the said Earl is not nor can be Intituled to any share of the said Thomas Wentworths Personal Estate for that the Act of Parliament is only Authoritative and directive to the Ordinary and Administrator and there are no vesting words therein whereby to Intitle the Lady Katherine to a share of the Estate and that she dying before any distribution and within the 12 Months allowed to that purpose her share fell among her Surviving Brothers and Sisters and however if she was Intituled to any part it could only be to a half-share she being but of the half-blood to the deceased and that so in the Course of the Civil Law But the Plaintiffs insisted The said Act explained That though the Act of Parliament be only Authoritative and directive to the Judge and yet such Authority and direction in an Act of Parliament doth by Judgment and Implication of Law vest an Interest in the Wife Children and Kindred for whose benefit the Act was made as much as if it had been a bequest of residuum bonorum for that the Act appoints all Ordinaries whatsoever on granting any Administration to take the Bond prescribed thereby one Clause of the Condition whereof is to pay the surplus that shall be found due on such Administration account to such Person or Persons as the Judge by his Decree or Sentence to that Act shall limit and appoint and then appoints the Ordinaries and Judges repectively to order and make just and equal distribution of such surplus amongst the Wife Children or next of Kin according to the Rules and Limitations therein and the same to Decree and settle which is the very Title of that Act and that tho' there be Twelve months time given for distribution yet that is only with respect to Creditors and no way hinders the vesting the surplus in such persons as are appointed to have it immediately upon the Trustees death any more then a Legacy to be paid in futuro and that it is generally a much longer time before an Intestates Estate can be got in and the surplus known and if the Executors or Administrators of persons dying in the mean time shall lose their shares it will elude the intent of the Act of Parliament which was made for the benefit of the Wife and Children and Kindred generally And it will lye much in the power of an Administrator by retarding his Account to prevent another of his share nay it will be mischevous to the Administrator and those who shall claim distribution for that if no Interest be vested in any before an actual distribution by Decree or Sentence then no distribution can be by Agreement or Consent of the Parties nor let the occasions or necessities of any claiming distribution be never so great can any Administrator satisfie the payment of any part of the Estate till such Sentence or Decree made which the Law makes could never intend and if no Interest be vested by that Act then hath this Court no Jurisdiction to intermedle therewith for that the Act only directs the Ecclesiastical Judge Distributions according to the Act for setling Intestates Estates are made in Chancery as well as in the Ecclesiastical Courts to make a Decree or Sentence for distribution but the same vesting an Interest and there being no Negative Words that a distribution shall be sued for there and elsewhere several distributions have been made in this Court as well in the Lord Chancellor Finch his time and the Lord Keeper North's time as since and that the same is looked upon as a Point setled and that it is the constant course of the Ecclesiastical Courts to Decree the shares of any persons dying before distribution to the Executors or Administrators of such persons so dying and not to the Surviving person claiming distribution and this Act was intended as the Will of every Intestate and the Wife Children and Kindred respectively to be as well intitutled as if the Intestate had made a Will and so Bequeathed the same amongst them and for the half Blood and whole Blood the same hath made no distribution between them but appointed the distribution to be equal and that for the Monies alleadged to be invested in Lands such Purchases do not alter the nature of the Case for that Thomas being a Minor could not give Authority or Consent for it and he might have discended to it when at Age and dying in Minority the same still remains part of his personal Estate and the Land is but in the nature of a Mortgage or additional Security for it This Court declared they saw no cause or colour to Decree any share for the Desendant Dame Dorothy and conceives her no way intituled to any but as to the Plaintiff the Lord Winchelsey This Court declared they were fully satisfied that the said Act of Parliament doth immediately upon the death of an Intestate If any of the next
should Marry in his Fathers life time then he should from such Marriage during his Fathers life pay the Defendant Interest for the 2500 l. And the Defendant insists That if the said Plaintiff dyed before his Father the Defendant had lost all his Mony This Cause being first heard by my Lord Finch 9 Feb. 33 Car. 2. who then upon reading the said Defezance declared That as this Cause was he could not releive the Plaintiff otherwise then against the penalty and decreed the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant 2500 l. with Interest This Cause was Re-heard by my Lord Chancellor Jeffreys the Plaintiff insisted That he had by order of this Court 5300 l. upon the said Judgment and that the late Lord Chancellor and Lord Keeper had frequently releived against such fraudulent and corrupt bargains made by Heirs in their Fathers life time and that there was not any real difference where the contract is for Mony and where it is for Goods This Court on reading the Defezance declared it fully appeared The Heir relieved against a concontingent contract made in his Fathers life time because it seemed unconscionable That these Bargains were corrupt and fraudulent and tended to the destruction of Heirs sent hither for Education and to the utter Ruin of Families and as there were new Frauds and subtle contrivances for the carrying them on so the relief of this Court ought to be extended to meet with and correct such corrupt Bargains and unconscionable practices and decreed the former order to be discharged and the Plaintiff to be restored to what he hath paid over and besides the Principal Mony and Interest Durston contra Sandys 2 Jac. 2. fo 108. THat the Defendant being Patron of the Rectory of Messenden in Com' Gloucester The Parson relieved against a Bond given for Resignation and the former Incumbent having Resigned the same the Defendant told the Plaintiff he would present him to the said Rectory worth about 100 l. per Annum and the Plaintiff coming to the Defendant for the said Presentation the Defendant drew a Bond of 300 l. penalty with Condition That the Plaintiff should resign the said Rectory at any time within six Months Notice which the Plaintiff sealed and thereupon the Plaintiff was Instituted and Inducted and was ever since a constant Resident on the place and hath been at charge of Repairs and the Plaintiff demanded Tithes of the Defendant who refuses to pay the same but gave the Plaintiff Notice to resign who Resigned the said Rectory into the Hands of the Bishop of Gloucester but the Bishop refused to accept the said Resignation and ordered the Plaintiff to continue to serve the Cure declaring That he would never countenance such Unjust practices of the Defendant but ordered his Register to enter it as an Act of Court That the Plaintiff had tendred his Resignation and that the said Bishop had rejected it That the Defendant Arrested the Plaintiff on the said Bond for not Resigning so to be relieved against the said Bond is the Plaintiffs Suit The Defendant insisted That the Plaintiff demanded more than his just due for Tithes whereupon the Defendant refused payment and that the Defendant requesting the Plaintiff to resign according to the Condition of the said Bond the Defendant Arrested him which he hopes is Just for him to do and that this Court will not hinder the prosecution and that the Plaintiff hath no colour of Relief in this Court against the said Bond and insist That the Reason of his Arresting the Plaintiff on the said Bond was his Non-residence and litigious Carriage to the Parishioners This Court declared That such Bonds taken by Patrons from their Clerks to Resign at pleasure may be good in Law yet ought to be enjoyned and damned in Equity whensoever they are used to any ill purposes And the Defendant making ill use of the said Bond his Lordship decreed That a perpetual Injunction be awarded against the Defendant to stay proceeding at Law upon the said Bond. Knight contra Atkyns 2 Jac. 2. fo 604. THat the Plaintiff is Brother and Heir as well of John as Benjamin Knight Marriage Agreement to have Monies laid out in Lands for a Joynture to such uses the Remainder to the use of the right Heirs of the Husband The Mony is not laid out the Husband dies without Issue the Mony decreed to the Plaintiff being right Heir and also Executor of the said Benjamin and the said John Knight being seised of a Plantation in Barbadoes of 1000 l. per Annum by his Will declared his debts to be paid and gave several Legacies and made his Brother Benjamin sole Executor and gave him the residue of all his real and personal Estate and the said Benjamin proved the Will and afterwards a Treaty of Marriage was between the said Benjamin and Sir Johnathan Atkyns on behalf of Frances the Daughter of Sir Jonathan upon which Treaty it was agreed that Sir Jonathan should give the said Benjamin 1500 l. as a Portion with the said Frances and for a Joynture in case Frances survived Benjamin was to add 1500 l. and the said Sums to be laid out in a purchase of Lands to be setled upon Benjamin and Fraâ—â—â—s for life and for a Joynture for Frances in lieu of her Dower and after their decease to the Issue between them and for want of such Issue to the right Heirs of the said Benjamin and until such purchase the said respective Sums of 1500 l. to be paid into the hands of the Feoffees and the increase thereof to the uses aforesaid but in regard such a purchase could not be speedily found out Sir Jonathan and Benjamin became mutually bound to each other by Bonds of 3000 l. penalty with Condition reciting That there being suddenly a Marriage to be had between the said Benjamin and Frances and for setling a future Maintenance upon Frances in case she survived and upon the Issue between them If therefore Sir Jonathan his Heirs Executors c. should pay as a Marriage portion with the said Frances into the hands of two Feoffees to be joyntly appointed between them 1500 l. which with the like Sum to be paid by Benjamin was to be laid out upon good Security real or personal and the increase thereof for the uses aforesaid and in case the whole was not provided within a short time then so much as either party should deposit and the Remainder with all convenient speed then the said Bonds to be void That such provision was sufficient and in full of any Dower the said Frances might have to Benjamin's Estate That no Feoffees being appointed the 1500 l. still remains at Interest in Sir Jonathans hands And the said Benjamin for payment as well of his own as his Brother Johns debts and legacies and to oblige his real and personal Estate for performance of the Marriage Agreement did by Deed in 1681. convey unto Trustees all his Plantations Houses
in Equity to be an Evidence against the Deed so as there appears no Evidence that the Earl surprized the Duke or that the Duke was surprized As to the third point touching the Circumstances and Conditions of the Persons The Earl was a near Relation and had done many kindnesses to the Duke and his Family and was especially intrusted by him and though the other Persons that claim by the Will of 1687. may be of Relation to him yet he that hath the best Title hath the right And so it is in the Case of Persons where both claim under two voluntary Conveyances As to the fourth and last point touching the Circumstances the Duke was in when the Will was made the Duke when he made the Will was under a Restraint by the Deed of 1681. for his power was executed and the Duke had restrained himself And the Court of Equity hath no power to examine into the Reasons and Considerations for doing it and there may be Reasons for a Wise Man to Restrain himself for he may not know what surprize may be put upon him and as there may be reason for it so it shall be presumed there was good reason Further there is no Evidence of an Intention in the Duke to execute the power for he had an opportunity to have done it and because a Man may one way dispose of his Estate that therefore he may do it any way is strange and if that may be done it will overthrow all the Conveyances that are made They on the other side pretend the Duke had forgotten the Deed. It was made but in 1681. and well attested by Credible Witnesses and if he had forgotten it his Councel had an Abstract of the Deed and because a Man had forgot a Deed that ought not to be a cause in a Court of Equity to set that Deed aside for Memory may fail but a Deed is Permanent so there ought to be no relief against the Earl and those that claim by the Deed of 1681. Lord Keeper There be three Suits in this Court the Dutchess her first Eill is to set aside the Deed of 1681. And the second Bill by the Moncks much to the same effect and on the same Evidence And the third Bill by the Earl complaining of the Will of 1687. On the hearing of the Causes the 8th day of July 1691. before the then Lords Commissioners and on a Trial directed touching the Validity of the said Deed of 1681. there was a Verdict for the Deed and this Verdict hath not been stirred The Cause comes now to be heard on the Equity reserved on the whole matter I declare the Deed doth stand Unrevoked at Law and the Defendant the Earl of Bathe is well intituled under that Deed for here are no Creditors nor Purchasers or any Children to be provided for and the benefit that comes to the Earl is the Essex and the Northern Estate The Court did declare that there is not any sufficient matter in Equity appears to set aside the Deed therefore dismist the Bill of the Earl of Mountague and Christopher Monk so far as they seek relief to set aside the said Deed of 1681. and as to the other matters Equity to be reserved THE TABLE A UPon the Buying the Equity of Redemption of Lands in Extent Account decreed from the time of the purchase p. 392 Bond to perform a Marriage Agreement pleaded in bar of other Debts 103 Letters under ones Hand shall amount to a good Agreement within the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries 286 Mony Agreed upon Marriage to be laid out in Land shall be applied as the Land should have been had it been purchased 409 Annuity not being demanded in 40 years time conceived to be a Trust 221 The Defendant ordered to pay the Plaintiff 100 l. for putting in a Scandalous Answer 386 Bill to discover Assets Lands decreed to be sold to supply the Personal Estate 99 Legatees to refund to make up Assets 137 Lands purchased in Trust decreed Assets to pay Judgments 143 No resorting back to a defect in Articles after a Conveyance thereupon executed 107 Cross-Bills for setting aside or performing an Award 24 A voluntary Award decreed to be performed 304 B BAil to answer no more than what is exprest in the Ac etiam Billae 55 226 Bankrupts as to Partners 227 228 Joynt Debts 227 228 Separate Creditors 227 228 Relief against Over-reaching Bargains and how 266 270 The Bill not to be taken pro Confesso if the Defendant hath not appeared but a Sequestration shall issue out against him 284 Relief denied against a Bond entred into to a Solicitor to pay 100 l. when a Verdict should be recovered 21 Parson relieved against a Bond given for Resignation 398 C CErtiorari allowed to remove proceedings by English Bill in the Lord Mayorâ—s Court into Chancery 110 Conveyance with power of Revocation on payment of 12 d. at such a place 12 d. was tendred at another place with express declaration to revoke the Deed 74 Vide Revocation Plaintiff two days before the Commission for Examination of Witnesses was arrested by the Defendant and in Execution ordered to be discharged and the Defendant to pay Costs and be at the charge of a New Commission 22 Covenant to purchase so much Lands per Annum value 273 Voluntary Conveyance tho' a provision for younger Children not to prevent satisfaction of subsequent Judgments 265 Copyholder not to be admitted by Letter of Attorney 56 Fines of Copyholders whether certain or arbitrary it having been tried at Law the Court would not relieve the Plaintiff other than for the preservation of Witnesses 76 Of renewing Copies upon reasonable Fines 135 Vpon a Contract for Copyhold Estate and Purchase Mony paid the Bargainor dies before Surrender his Heir decreed to surrender 218 Surrender of Copyhold Land by Infant of 5 years Old 392 Costs from the time of their being Taxed shall carry Interest and shall Charge and be recovered out of the Assets 247 Where Costs to be paid or not 172 Bill for Creditors to take their proportionable shares but their Debts having been paid to them and Releases given dismist 218 D THe Court of Chancery will not try or ascertain Damages recovered at Law 63 Copies of Depositions not to be recorded or exemplified 36 Depositions suppressed and why 393 Blanks filled up after the sealing and execution of a Deed yet good 410 Distribution according to the Act for the better settlement of Intestates Estates 371 372 Such Distributions are made in Chancery as well as in the Ecclesiastical Courts 373 374 375 A 1000 l. to be raised amongst 5 Children one dies before Distribution the Survivors shall have the Share and not the Devisee of him that is dead 150 Decree in Chancery as effectual to charge the person as an Execution at Law 193 Executory Devises vide Perpetuities Term devised to B. and he die without Issue then to C. it s void as to C. 16 200 l.