Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/237

proved that Christy was sensible of the injury he had done appellant, and repeatedly promised to make her satisfaction, but did not in his life time nor by his will; wherefore appellant brought her bill in Chancery against Sir Charles Bickerstaffe, Philip Bickerstaffe, and the executors of Christy; who answered, and witnesses being examined, the cause was heard before the Lord-keeper, 22d February, 1700, who declared he thought neither Bridges nor Christy had done well in this matter; but did not think there was upon the whole sufficient to ground a decree for both or either of them to make appellant satisfaction, and dismissed the bill without costs; which decree of dismission appellant insisted ought to be reversed, because it appeared by Bridges's answer, that 790l. only was due to him at the time of the assignment, and that he ought not to have given a receipt for more, nor to have had credit in Johnson's books for more; but Sir Charles ought to have given a receipt for the 210l. so that it is a violent presumption that the 210l. was swallowed amongst the persons concerned in lending the money, and that the receipt and credit were contrived to colour the fraud; and that Bridges concealed the decree of foreclosure and the prosecution at law, and that he had received 600l. of the money, and that Hungerford was reported the purchaser at 600l. and knew it [142] to be a defective security, and yet imposed it on Christy without discovering the defects; and that it was agreeable to equity and good conscience that Bridges should take a re-assignment of his security, and pay appellant her 1000l. with interest and costs; and that Christy was debtor, and accountable to her at first for the 1000l. which he actually received of her money; and insisted that his putting the money out without acquainting her or any of her friends, or advising with council, did not, neither did her receiving the mortgage deed, and 68l. interest, discharge him from her original demand against him; and that it was inexcusable neglect in him to accept of this mortgage without making necessary searches and enquiries, though it turned out that Sir Charles then owed near 10,000l. upon statutes, judgments, and recognizances, which common caution ought to have discovered; but that Christy never enquired even into the value of the mortgaged estate, nor took any care in applying the 1000l. but, as pretended, paid the whole to Bridges, though only 790l. remained due to him; and that Christy had, himself, promised to make appellant full satisfaction, and had neither left child unprovided for, nor creditor unpaid, and had left an estate of near 20,000l. and though it may be objected that Christy had left appellant 20l. per annum by his will, yet this 20l. per annum was not to take effect in possession till after his widow's death; nor do respondents, his executors, by their answer, insist on that matter. (Sa. Blackerby.)

The respondents, the executors of Christy, on the other hand stated; That their testator, Thomas Christy, was married to appellant's sister, and that appellant, in 1692, desired him to receive and put out at interest for her 1000l. which was then to be paid in; which, without other motive than his affinity and respect for her, he undertook; and that the estate of Sir Charles Bickerstaffe, at Tunbridge, then in mortgage for 1000l. (as alleged) to respondent Bridges, and which had been assigned to him by Sir Robert Marsham (The Son of Sir John the original mortgagee), was proposed as a security, and Mr. Christy being acquainted with, and having a good opinion of Philip Bickerstaffe, Esq. with whom he sat in parliament, and who was contented to be bound with Sir Charles his brother for the money, and Sir Robert Marsham and Mr. Bridges, both six clerks, being reputed men of caution and understanding, and the security being to be transferred for the same sum of mo-[143]-ney then upon it, he accepted the security, and in March, 1692, lent the money, and took the assignment of the mortgage, and also the bonds of the said Sir Charles and Philip Bickerstaffe to appellant, and delivered her the writings, except some old leases (not material to the title) which he left in London, and which were after Mr. Christy's death delivered to appellant by one of the respondents: And that appellant accepted the security, and received the interest for some time; but afterwards disliking the security, in March, 1698, petitioned the parliament that Mr. Bickerstaffe might ware his privilege, and sued him: That Thomas Christy died 1st July, 1697, and appellant, 13th July, 1698, commenced her suit in Chancery against Bridges and respondents, charging Bridges with fraud in not discovering the deficiency of the security, and respondent's testator with