Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/337

dismiss the bill: And that when respondents pretended deeds of purchase were read, there appeared no such valuable consideration inserted therein, as he had sworn in his plea and answer, the only consideration being past services, 5s. in hand, and 400l. per ann. to Sir l. for life; nor was there any mention of any account stated, as sworn in the plea and answer; yet that the Chancellor decreed that the appellants were not intituled to a specific performance of the articles, in regard of the length of time, and declared that the deeds made before marriage (though with a power of revocation in one of them) were an execution of the articles and accepted as such, and that respondent Phillips did not prove himself such a purchaser for valuable consideration as would avoid a performance of the [350] articles in specie, if appellants were intitled to it; and as to appellants demand of the performance of the articles relating to the personal estate, he was of opinion that in regard of the bond, whereon a recovery might be had at law against the disposition made by the will of Sir Simon, or any deed that should appear to be made fraudulently to avoid the articles, that the appellants ought not to have an execution in specie of the articles in a court of equity, and therefore dismissed appellants bill; which decree appellants insisted ought to be reversed: And appellants decreed to have a specific performance of the articles, and an account of the real and personal estate of Sir Simon, and a discovery and delivery of all deeds, evidences and writings relating thereunto; and that the pretended deed of purchase ought to be set aside; and insisted no notice was necessary to avoid a voluntary conveyance, or will, and this the rather, because appellant Martha was heir at law to Sir Simon, and respondent Phillips, no way related to him in blood; and because Mary the mother, and Simon her husband, were infants when married in 1678, and therefore could not agree to those deeds contrary to the articles. (R. Thornhill.)

The respondent, Chichester Phillips, on his part shewed, that after his father's death his mother married Simon, afterwards Sir Simon Eaton, and by him had issue (only) Simon, who married as stated by appellants, and died in 1684; and that before that marriage two settlements were made by Sir Simon Eaton; one irrevocable, the other revocable; and by the irrevocable settlement, an estate of Sir Simon's then worth 800l. and now above 1000l. per annum, was for the small portion of 2000l. settled as shewed by appellants; and that by the revocable settlement, another real estate of small value was settled on Sir Simon for life, remainder in general tail to his son, with a remainder in fee to himself; and that these settlements were made with great deliberation, and Sir Richard and all other parties acquiesced for above 20 years under these settlements: And that two years after young Simon's death, Mary married George Mathews, senior, a profest papist, father of appellant George; at which Sir Simon was very uneasy, because he feared Mr. Mathews, senior, would marry his son, likewise a papist and bred in France, to Martha; and that thereby the [351] estate (which Sir Simon, a protestant, had acquired by his services in the wars against the rebellious Irish papists) would go into a popish family, and to the son of one who had been remarkably zealous against the protestant interest, and his late Majesty King William: And that Sir Simon thereupon applied to the Court of Chancery in England, to have the guardianship of Martha, and that Court ordered Mr. Mathews, senior, to give a recognizance of 2000l. that Martha should not be married without leave of that Court; and that Sir Simon expressed his dislike of the second marriage of Mary by several letters, and also by revoking the revokable settlement, which he did about two years after that marriage, and proposed several protestant matches, of honour, quality, and considerable estates for Martha, to prevent her marrying with Mr. Mathews's son, who in respect of estate, as well as religion, was an unfit match for her; all which matches were eluded by the Mr. Mathews, senior: And that after the death of young Simon, and marriage of Mary, Sir Simon, upon the rebellion in Ireland, escaped to England, and being very old, never returned back, but earnestly desired the respondent to quit his employment in England, (being Captain Lieutenant of horse) and go into Ireland to take care of his estate and affairs there, promising to reward him well for so doing, which appeared by several letters: and that respondent accordingly quitted his employment, and went to Ireland, and found Sir Simon's estate in very ill circumstances; and that respondent was