Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/236

the Lords were under some difficulty in this matter; for if appellant proceeded, those depositions must be used, otherwise there would be nothing to justify the reversal of the decree against appellant; and if those depositions should be used, the Lords doubted whether that he had not so united the causes, as that appellant ought to have brought Quin before the Lords as well as respondent Ormsby: Wherefore adjourned the further hearing till 15th May.—Lords Journ. vol. xvi p. 669.

Note. Nothing was done in this cause on the 15th of May, nor afterwards (as I find), save two adjournments; one Mercurij 28 Maij, to Monday next, and from thence on that day to Friday.—Vid. Journ. vol. xvi. p. 711, 717.

The appellant made this case: That Sir Charles Bickerstaffe, 26th February, 1680, mortgaged the higher and lower Culverdens to Sir John Marsham, Bart. for 250l. and that he and his son at several times afterwards, on the same security, advanced so much more money as came to 1100l. and that respondent Bridges, in 1685. paid the 1100l. and took an assignment of the mortgage, and 20th April, 1687, joined in the sale of 19 acres, the best part of the mortgaged premisses, and received 100l. of his principal, all arrears of interest being then paid; and in Trinity term, 1689, filed his bill in Chancery against Sir Charles to foreclose, and 20th January, 1689, obtained a decree for foreclosure, unless the money paid by the last day of Michaelmas term then next; and that the master, 24th October, 1690, reported 1243l. 13s. 6d. to be due; and the estate was sold under an order, dated 24th July, 1691, to a Mr. Hungerford, who was reported the purchaser, at 600l. after which respondent Bridges caused Sir Charles to be arrested on his collateral bond, or on his covenant, and held to special bail, either for the whole mortgage money, or for the deficiency after the sale, and Sir Charles turned himself over to the fleet; but afterwards, 19th February, 1691, paid Bridges 600l. and so got out of the fleet, there then remaining due to Bridges 643l. 16s. 6d. according to the master's report, Sir Charles being then more incumbered than all his estate could pay and further stated, that appellant bad then 1000l. her whole portion, paid in, which was, in 1692, received by Thomas Christy, who then lodged at one Thompson's, a money scriviner in new Palace-yard, Westminster; and that Christy, of his own head, without appellant's privity, or the advice of council, lent the 1000l. on this mortgage, of which he took an assignment, dated 8th March, 1692, and afterwards wrote word of it to appellant, who was then 40 miles from London; and that though the money was paid, and Bridges gave a receipt for the whole 1000l. yet [141] he swears he received but 790l. no more being due to him, so there remained 210l. not received by Sir Charles Bickerstaffe; and that respondent Bridges had credit in Johnson the goldsmith's books for the whole 1000l. and that the nineteen acres aforementioned were excepted out of the assignment; and that a bond was prepared for Sir Charles, and Stewart Bickerstaffe, Esq. his eldest son and heir, to seal for 2000l. conditioned to pay the 1000l. and interest, and for performance of the covenants in the assignment, but that the son never executed it, but that Philip Bickerstaffe, Esq. executed a bond, in the penalty only of 1200l. for payment of the 1000l. and interest, in case the same were not paid in a year; and that in about three months after Christy went into the country and acquainted appellant what he had done, who was surprised and dissatisfied at it; and desired both principal and interest might be paid in at the year's end; and that she received some writings relating to the title, and 68l. interest, but received these from Christy, never having even seen Sir Charles Bickerstaffe; and that it was fully