Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/316

chargeable with both sums; and appellant insisted that the words of Sir John's will not being of a doubtful signification, no such collateral foreign evidence ought to be admitted to support the presumption for which the respondent contended, especially when the will itself seemed to exclude all presumption; for it expressed that these portions of 3300l. a-piece to his daughters, were given them in lieu and full satisfaction of the respective sums appointed to be raised for their portions by his marriage-settlement: And appellants insisted, that what was so expresly declared to be given in satisfaction of one thing, should never be presumed to be given in satisfaction for another; and that Sir John had not power to dispose of this money; And that Lady Monins, in answer to a cross bill brought against her, denied the truth of the memorandum made by Sir John, and swore she only intended to give it amongst his daughters, as an addition to their portions when they married, provided it were with her consent; and that her ladyship's keeping Sir John's notes given her for the money, confirmed this: And appellant showed, that when Sir John paid his daughter Elizabeth 500l. of this money upon her marriage with Mr. Lely, Lady Monin's consent was asked to the match, and her directions given for the payment of it: And appellants contended further, that as Sir John Knatchbull never was debtor to his daughter Eleanor for the 500l. in question, he therefore could not ease himself of that 500l. or sink it in her portion of 3300l. And further, that the 500l. in question never vested in Eleanor, so that she could never have released it to her father; and that even upon a due construction of his own memorandum, Eleanor was not to have the 500l. unless she married, which was after her father's death, and after the assignment; but the 3300l. was [307] devised to her absolutely; and yet, if she had died unmarried, she had no pretence to the 500l. and that by all this it appeared it was never intended to be included therein. (F. Page. Edm. Miller.)

The respondent, in affirmance of the decree, stated, that Sir John Knatchbull had, in 1679, intermarried with the daughter of Lady Monins, and by his marriage settlement, among other things, created a term of 1000 years for raising 8000l. for daughters portions in case of three or more daughters, and no issue male; and that Sir John had issue a son and three daughters, and the son arriving at the age of 21 years, and being tenant in tail in remainder, in 1689 joined with Sir John in a recovery to destroy the term, and soon after died without issue: And that Sir John, in 1689 and 1690, borrowed 1400l. from Lady Monins, and gave his notes for repayment thereof, with interest at 5l. per cent. and afterwards, in 1691, entered into a treaty to marry his eldest daughter Elizabeth to Mr. Lely, and offered to advance 2500l. for her portion; and Lady Monins likewise offered to add 500l. out of the 1400l. to make that fortune a compleat 3000l. and that that marriage took effect, with this variation only; that instead of the 3000l. Sir John assigned to Mr. Lely certain marsh lands in Kent, to the value of 160l. per annum; and that as to the 900l. residue of the 1400l. Lady Monins agreed with him, that that money should sink in his hands, provided he would add 500l. a-piece to the fortunes of the two unmarried daughters; and that Sir John gratefully acknowledged Lady Monins's bounty, and at his death left a note in his study, to testify his thanks for the same; and also to prevent all mistakes touching his notes for the 1400l. which lay out in Lady Monins's hands against him; and that Sir John afterwards contracted debts amounting to 18000l. and in October, 1696, made his will, and appointed 3300l. a-piece to Eleanor and Jane, his two unmarried daughters, whereby 500l. a-piece was added to their portions, and declared it to be in lieu of the provision made by his marriage settlement; and dying without issue male, devised his lands to respondent, his brother, subject to his debts and legacies, which were 25000l. and that Eleanor having after Sir John's death intermarried with West, and died without issue, respondent paid the 3300l. to West, her administrator; [308] and that respondent in his answer to West's bill insisted, that the 500l. was made good according to Lady Monins's agreement, and was comprehended in the legacy already paid to him in his wife's fortune: And respondent now insisted, the Lords ought to confirm the dismission of that bill, for that it had been always taken to be a rule of natural equity, that whenever a legacy of greater value is given to a creditor, it should be presumed to comprehend the debt; and the rather in this ease, because it appeared by proofs in the cause, and by a solemn memorandum under