Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/309

own consent, contained in the last order, which was never done by any Court of justice, especially when appellant did not complain against the words by consent being put into the order: And whereas appellant objected, that Sir Arthur owed debts of a higher nature than the money for which he was accountable out of the trust estate, which was said to be in nature of a debt by simple contract; respondent answered, that there was no proof in the cause, or, at least, none read, that there were any such debts of a higher nature, or that the appellant had paid any beyond assets; and that the debt for profits received out of the trust estate was decreed against Sir Arthur himself by the first decree, and that a decree in Chancery was equal to a judgment at common law: And to another objection, that the decree and orders complained of overthrow the decree in the other cause twice re-heard and affirmed by the Lords, whereby the 2756l. 1s. 4d. was confirmed to appellant, respondents answered, that that decree was not in the smallest impeached, but that The only question was, whether appellant should be paid twice, for it appeared Sir Arthur had more money in his hands than would satisfy the 2756l. 1s. 4d. and yet the appellant would levy it again upon respondent Alice, contrary to her own consent in the last [293] order: And respondent insisted that the case made by appellant was in many parts untrue, evasive and fallacious; for that appellant had passed over in silence her consent to the order of the 4th of June, from which she appealed, and complained against the Court of Chancery in the gross, without specifying a single instance wherein the order complained of was unjust; and that appellant untruly averred, that the order of the 4th of June was made in a cause commenced in Chancery since appellant's decree affirmed by the Lords; whereas that cause had been commenced 31st January, 1689, above two years before the affirmance: Wherefore respondent having been above twenty-one years in Chancery, not as plaintiff, but defending herself and her jointure against such unreasonable demands, insisted that the appeal ought to be dismissed with costs. (W. Dobyns.)

The respondent, Sir Francis Northcote, on his part stated, that Sir Arthur continued in possession of the trust estate, intending to raise and pay the 4000l. and paid part; but that John, his son, soon after dying, respondent Alice, his widow and executrix, married William Northcote, Sir John's surviving executor, and sued and recovered from Sir Arthur the monies mentioned in the appeal, and obstructed his payment of the residue of the 4000l. and occasioned him to commence the suit in Chancery, and that respondent was no party to that suit, nor to any proceeding; but that on Sir Arthur's death the trust estate descended to respondent, and that William and Alice Northcote, notwithstanding Sir Arthur and they had raised out of the trust estate more than would have paid the 4000l. and interest, endeavoured to evict respondent out of the possession of the trust estate; wherefore respondent exhibited his bill, upon which the proceedings before stated were had: And that both appellant and respondent had excepted to Doctor Edisbury's report, and those exceptions were heard the 4th June last, and the order of that date then made, by which respondent conceived himself much injured, and obtained an order to re-hear those exceptions, but that this appeal had retarded such re-hearing: And that respondent's suit was only to discharge his lands and estate of the 4000l. and interest, which was by Sir Ar-[294]-thur and William Northcote's, and respondent Alice's receipts, out of the trust estate, really raised before the death of Sir Arthur, if duly accounted for; but that instead of taking the account, as was most just, the whole 4000l. and interest, was by the report carried on to December, 1701, as if nothing paid or received in that time; and yet that William Northcote, the surviving executor of Sir John, and person to whom the 4000l. was payable, had, in 1691, of Sir Arthur's money to answer his receipts out of the trust estate, according to the decrees and orders, 2797l. 8s. 1d. and had actually received out of part of the trust estate, himself, in 1688, 2400l. more, which was not sunk, or applied in ease of respondent, as received, but that interest of the whole 4000l. was carried on and charged for many years after such receipt, to respondent's great wrong: And respondent insisted, that if the account were taken of the monies raised out of the trust estate as received, and so applied, it would appear his estate bad answered, and made good the whole 4000l. and interest, with considerable overplus, to free his estate from which charge was the