Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/342

legacy and interest; and taxed respondents costs at 69l. 18s. 5d. and that by this time appellant had wasted, all the assets, and absconded, so that respondents could not find him to serve him with the writ of execution of the decree; and upon the usual affidavit obtained an order that service of his clerk in Chancery, and agent at law, should be good service; and that this order and writ of execution had been served accordingly, and the money not being paid, respondents [360] prosecuted appellant for his contempt to an attachment, proclamation, commission of rebellion, and serjeant at arms; and upon the serjeant's return, that he could not find the appellant, respondent had a sequestration against his estate, and after the sequestration executed, appellant set up one Anne Cotton, his own sister, to make title to all his lands and goods sequestered, and would cover part of the lands under an old deed, pretended to be made by his father, of near 30 years standing, for raising 150l. for her portion, and the rest of the lands and goods under a bargain and sale, pretended to be made to her by himself; after he was so in contempt and that appellant had put respondents to 150l. charges, for recovery of 100l. legacy; and respondents insisted that the decree ought to be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with exemplary costs; because it was not controverted, that respondents were entitled to the legacy, and it was fully proved that between 4000 and 5000l. of Mrs. Ashby's estate had come to appellant's hands, for which he had not in any manner accounted; and because appellant had less reason to pretend surprise in respondents proceedings in Chancery, in regard he himself is an attorney, and solicitor there. (W. Peere Williams.)

Die Jovis, 20 Februarii, 1706. After hearing council on this appeal, it was adjudged by the Lords that the same should be dismissed, and the decree complained of affirmed; and that appellant should pay respondents 50l. costs of defending the appeal, to be levied by the sequestration appellant's estate then lay under. Lords Journ. vol. xviii. 246.

The appellant shewed: That Henry Hampson, Esq. being seised and possest of several estates in Devon and Cornwall, and in Taplow in Bucks, by indenture, 15th November, 1699, mortgaged the same to appellant for 2500l. principal money; and afterwards, by indenture, 4th December, 1700, for the further sum of 503l. 15s. making together 3003l. 15s. and for the further consideration of an annuity of 120l. tax-free, payable to the said Henry Hampson for his life, charged on appellant's estate in the county of Southampton, conveyed the equity of redemption, and all the mortgaged estates in fee; and that appellant had ever since been in possession, and laid out considerable sums in improvements: and that since the purchase, respondents pretending great judgment debts due to them from the said Henry Hampson, about July, 1701, exhibited their bill in Chancery against appellant, praying a redemption of the promises on payment of what should appear due to him on the mortgage, but took no notice of the absolute purchase: And that appellant had put in a plea and answer to that bill, and insisted on his purchase for a full and valuable consideration; and that at the time of his purchase he had no notice of respondents judgments; but that appellant had no opportunity upon that plea, to call in question the reality of the alleged debts; and that an issue was afterwards directed to try whether appellant had notice of the judgments, and it was found that the appellant had notice of the said judgments before the 4th of December, 1700; and the cause coming to be heard, upon the equity reserved, 27th April, 1703, before the Master of the Rolls, he decreed that appellant should pay respondents within six months, what Sir Lacon William Child, the master, should find due to them, and that respondents should thereupon assign their judgments to appellant; but in default thereof, respondents to pay appellant what the master should report due on the 2500l. mortgage; and appellant thereupon to convey to them all his interest [362] in the premises; but the Master was not to ravel into