Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/412

to Lawrence, on the contingency of John's dying without issue male, was not secured by John in pursuance of the agreement; so far from it, that Lawrence filed a bill, insisting that the legacy given by the codicil ought to be secured by the order of the court, and obtained a decree to that effect. 4th, The oath recited in the articles proved John Davoren to have been conscious that this agreement was in itself fraudulent, and that he endeavoured to inforce the validity of it by operating on the religious feelings of his brother Lawrence. 5th, John Davoren never afterwards acted as if these articles had any existence; he did not state it in his answers of 1745, or 1746; nor was there any notice taken of them in the suit for recovery of the 3000l. legacy in 1743, but insisted on his right to sue on all the bonds entered into by Lawrence; and actually entered judgment on one of them in 1743. Nor was this article ever set up in bar of the respondent's title until the year 1750, after the conveyance to Hogan. 6th, John Davoren did not venture to recite these articles in his conveyance to Hogan, though both he and Hogan afterwards relied on them as their only title to Lawrence's moiety. That the conveyance from John Davoren to Edmund Hogan in 1748, could not affect the respondent; because Hogan (from having been Lawrence Davoren's attorney when he filed his original bill in 1732) had positive notice of Lawrence's title, and therefore never could be considered as a bona fide purchaser; nor did Hogan pay any thing near a full consideration even for John's moiety of the fee-simple estate, with all the remainder of John's property, real and personal, which he conveyed to him. That [31] the annuity of 200l. a year to John Davoren, which was part of the consideration for the conveyance to Hogan, was so badly paid, that at the time of John's death, an arrear of 800l. was due on it, which had not been yet paid; and that this purchase was made by Hogan, pendente lite, and also at the time when a compromise was pending between John Davoren and his brother Lawrence, which was interrupted and finally prevented by the influence and threats of Edmund Hogan. That the respondent was entitled to have the bond of the 12th May 1726, given up to him, it being taken for letting him into the subsisting interest in the farm of Gragans, directed to be given him by the codicil of James Davoren.—It has been insisted, that James Davoren had no right to bequeath this farm, it being the property of John Davoren. But as John Davoren (by possessing himself of all his brother James's personal estate as his executor) acquiesced in the will, he thereby precluded himself from disputing any part of it. As to the two bonds and note of the 12th July, to George Martin, the respondent was also entitled to have them given up, as they were acknowledged by John Davoren himself, in his further answer of the 1st May 1755, to have been entered into without any valuable consideration. But the appellant contended, that the proper remedy for the respondent was at law, and not in equity.—Whereas the title deeds of the estate being all in the hands of John, and John, by obtaining several bonds and warrants, and other instruments, from Lawrence, for the purpose of preventing his legal remedy, forced Lawrence into equity, for an injunction and discovery as to the several acts of fraud practised by John Davoren upon Lawrence—The concealment of the title deeds—The suppressing of the codicil to James's will—The several bonds passed without consideration—the setting up of James's widow's annuity as a charge on the real estate, when her marriage articles (which demonstrated the contrary) were in the hands of John—An account being requisite to be prayed of the rents and profits, and that the title deeds and boundaries might be set out (the lands being so mixed with others that the sheriff could not give possession at law in a summary way)—And a partition of the premises being necessary;—were all circumstances which rendered Lawrence's remedy peculiarly proper and cognizable in a court of equity, where he alone could have complete relief. That the delay of the suit could not be imputed to the respondent—The different proposals for a compromise, the failure in the execution of which was always on the part of John Davoren, or Edmund Hogan—The close connection between the parties—The attorney of Lawrence afterwards becoming the son-in-law of John, and a party in the suit—The different orders made on the part of Lawrence in the cause—showed clearly that the delay was occasioned by the conduct of John Davoren and Edmund Hogan.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the decree therein complained of should be affirmed. (MS. Jour, sub anno 1780, p. 256.)