Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/247

value of the estate, before the surviving partners had time to secrete and embezzle, waste, or entangle the same: And that respondents would be utterly ruined, if, at such a distance of time, they should be forced to come to an account de novo, and to be left to charge the partner surviving by proof, respondents being utter strangers to the trade, and unexperienced therein. (William Cooper.)

Die Mercurii, 26 Martis, 1701. After hearing council upon this appeal, it was ordered by the Lords that the same should be dismissed, and the decree and orders complained of affirmed. Lords Journ. vol. xvi. p. 685.

The appellants shewed, that Thomas Darrell, 4th August, 1697, made his will; and after specifick legacies to his five daughters, and to all his grand children, great grand children, and other relations, amounting to 4293l. disposed of the surplus of his personal estate, about 6000l. in the words following:—

And appointed respondents, Sir John Molesworth, and Mr. Arscott, executors, and died 3d January, 1697; and that appellants, Mrs. Trelawney, and Mrs. Sagittary, were two of testator's grand daughters, and had after his death, and within two years thereof, three children, Elizabeth Trelawney, and John and Anne Sagittary, born of their bodies, and for them claimed shares of the surplus of testator's personal estate, as three of the great grand children, living within two years next after his death; and accordingly brought their bill in Chancery against respondents, the executors; and 1st March, 1698, the cause was heard before the Master of the Rolls, who declared that testator's grand children, and great grand children, born before the expiration of two years [164] after his death, were intitled to their shares of his surplus, personal estate, equally with those born at the time of his death. But respondent, Lady Gratiana Carew, being dissatisfied, petitioned to re-hear the cause; which was accordingly re-heard, 28th June, 1700, before the Lord Keeper; who declared that the infants, Elizabeth, John and Ann, born after the testator's death, were excluded from any share of the surplus, and decreed the same accordingly; but appellants contended that they were intituled equally with the testator's great grand children, living at the time of his death; they being in judgment of law of the same degree of relation to the testator; and that they were within the express words and meaning of the testator's will; and that therefore the latter decree ought to be reversed, and the former affirmed by the Lords. (Richard Buckby.)

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the Lord Keeper's decree ought to be affirmed, and shewed that the testator's personal estate; was about 12,000l. and that he had living at his death five children; twelve grand children, and four great grand children, and by his will declared he thought it a duty incumbent on him to make some provision for all such children and grand children as he should leave behind him, and gave a particular legacy to each of his children, grand children, and great grand children by name, and then added the clause set forth in the appellant's case: And that this will was all dictated by the testator