Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/317

Sir John's hand, that he had settled the matter with Lady Monins, and had agreed to add the 500l. a-piece to the portions of his unmarried daughters; and that in this case it would sound the more harsh to presume the contrary, inasmuch as it would tend to increase the younger daughters fortunes so much out of proportion to their elder sister, and to lessen the overplus to respondent, who was to carry the honour and name of the family; and that it plainly appeared in proof, that Sir John, on all occasions, professed that he never intended to his daughters, out of his own estate, any more than the sum of 2666l. 13s. 4d. the portion appointed by his marriage settlement; which, together with this 500l. and 133l. 6s. 8d. particularly proved to be designed for their present subsistence, till the time appointed for the payment of their fortunes, exactly amounted to the sum of 3300l. the portion limited by his will; and though the words of the will had declared it to be in lieu of the marriage settlement, yet it could not be restrained to that only, because it was fully proved that those words wore inserted to answer the peculiar scruple of Mr. Hoskins, at the drawing of the said will, lest the demand on the settlement should be set up, notwithstanding the legacy; and that it was not to be presumed Lady Monins could understand that this debt was still subsisting upon the old notes, when she required his bond for 600l. in July, 1695, afterwards lent him, and for which she had received a constant, interest, without any demand upon the notes, as appeared by proofs in the cause: And respondent shewed that West, or his wife, never advanced this pretension in a suit commenced and prosecuted against them [309] by respondent for proving Sir John's will, though they therein thought fit to insist on the legacy, and even on the provision by the marriage settlement over and above; nor did West afterwards, when bond was given by respondent for the fortune, ever pretend to demand it. (Jeffery Gilbert.)

Die Mercurii, 16 Februarii, 1703. After hearing council, the Lords adjudged that this petition and appeal should be dismissed, and the decree of dismission complained of affirmed.—Lords Journ. xvii. p. 438.

The appellant made this case: That James Cockayne was indebted to him, and had no means to pay him save the equity of redemption of a farm in Henchwick, Gloucestershire, then in mortgage to one John Crispe, (the respondent's attorney) for about 930l. and that Cockayne and Wife, and Crispe, 22d May, 1691, by articles under seal, agreed that appellant should be put into possession of the farm, and by the profits paid the money then owing to him by Cockayne, and such money as appellant had paid and secured, or engaged to pay for the debts of Cockayne, and other moneys disbursed for him, which several sums were reckoned in the articles at 1830l. and interest for the same: And the articles reciting that there was on the 16th day of March then last 700l. due to Crispe, over and above any moneys then paid or secured to be paid to Crispe, appellant thereby covenanted to pay Crispe the 700l. with interest upon six months notice, and to pay 42l. per annum interest by half yearly payments; and Crispe covenanted that on such payment he would assign his mortgage to appellant, and that by subsequent articles, 28th May, 1691, between Cockayne and his wife and appellant, it was further agreed that the farm should be managed by a person to be appointed by them, who was half yearly to account with then, but that the rents and profits should be paid to appellant: And that appellant thereby covenanted that after the 1830l. with interest, paid, he would assign the premisses on six months notice to such person as respondent should appoint in trust for her And that it was further agreed, that if the premisses should not be managed by a person to be nominated by the parties, then the same should be let for the best rent they would bring, and the stock thereon sold for the best rate, and the moneys paid to appellant, towards satisfaction of the 1830l. and that a receipt was given by Cockayne and his wife for the same, in these words, viz. "Received of Anthony Rowe, [311] Esquire, the sum of 1830l. it being the consideration money in the articles