Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/307

appeal, and affirmed the decree (16th Feb. 1691); and that respondent Alice and William Northcote for a long time avoided the performance of the Lords decree, (vid. Journ. iv. 79) by vesting their estate in members of parliament, who insisted on privilege and other dilatories, so that appellant was for ten years kept out of the monies decreed her and interest; but after every opposition got a sequestration from Chancery against the estate of William and Alice, but never could levy sufficient to pay her costs; and that Sir Arthur's creditors, tired out with these delays, were importunate for their debts, and that appellant considering the monies so decreed to her, assets, of her testator, subject to his debts, did upon the credit thereof pay his debts by judgments and specialties, to the amount of the money due under the decree, in expectation of being reimbursed out of that money; and that Sir Francis Northcote, son and heir of Sir Arthur, brought his hill in Chancery against appellant, and said William and Alice Northcote, for an account of what had been received out of the trust estate, and to be quieted in the enjoyment thereof; and that in that cause an account was decreed to be taken of what had or might have been raised towards discharge of the 4000l. and how the profits had been applied, [289] and that any deficiency should be borne and paid in average between Sir Francis, William, and respondent Alice, according to their respective interests in the trust estate, and that William and Alice should make good what appellant could charge them with, towards payment of the 4000l. and interest; and that appellant should make good what Sir Arthur had received and not paid, as far as she had assets of Sir Arthur; and that the Master, 20th December, 1701, reported that Sir Arthur had received 3534l. 7s. 8½d. out of the trust estate, and appointed the money so decreed to appellant to make the same good, so far as it extended, and made Sir Arthur debtor 778l. 16s. 4½d. and appointed same to be paid by appellant out of Sir Arthur's assets; and that to this report appellant took several exceptions, and amongst others, that the Master had allowed no interest for the money decreed from the time of the decree affirmed by the Lords, which exception as to interest was over-ruled, and the Master's report confirmed; and that appellant had thereby lost the whole 2797l. 8s. 1d. and ten years interest; and that appellant was aggrieved by this decree, because she had paid ber testator's debts out of her own estate, in confidence of the Lords former decree; and if she were disabled to retain to reimburse herself, as by law she had a right to do, she would be wholly defeated of the benefit of that decree; and therefore insisted that the decree so made in Sir Francis Northcote's cause, ought to be reversed. (H. Poley.)

The respondent Alice on the other hand shewed, that Sir John Northcote had by his will made his grandson John Northcote, respondent Alice's first husband, and William Northcote, her second husband, executors and residuary legatees, and particularly gave them the 4000l. and appointed them to pay thereout 2926l. legacies to twenty several persons; and that on Sir John's death, Sir Arthur, notwithstanding the trust, entered upon the whole estate: And that on John Northcote's death, respondent Alice had became intitled to the possession of the lands of Newton St. Cyre's as her jointure, settled on her in lieu of 8000l. portion, notwithstanding which, and although the 4000l. might have been raised by that time, Sir Arthur kept possession till 1682, and died in 1688, having only paid 250l. towards interest of the 4000l. and that by his death the estate [290] subject to the trust came to the respondent Sir Francis and as to the 2756l. 1s. 4d. and appellant's claim to it; respondent stated that Sir John, by his will took notice that he had paid several considerable sums for his son, Sir Arthur's debts, and forgave him all that money, upon condition that he indemnified his executors from other monies, for which Sir John had been surety, and paid for Sir Arthur, and of which securities he, Sir John, had taken assignments, and Sir John's executors compelled Sir Arthur to repay those sums; and that Sir Arthur thereupon in Hilary term, 1681, exhibited his bill, and in Easter term, 1882, a supplemental bill to be relieved touching these, sums, and about raising the 4000l. and 11th July, 35th Car. 2d. obtained a decree (amongst other things) to be reimbursed by said William Northcote, and another defendant, and one Edward Row, proportionably the sum he had so paid in discharge of those debts, with interest, which by his bill he charged to be 1100l. yet that Sir John Franklin the Master, 31st March, 1691, reported the same to be 1600l. and carried on interest for the same, making 2756l. 1s. 4d. and appointed the said Willian Northcote, and the respondent Alice his wife, to pay that sum to