Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/476

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

I BROWN.

POWELL v. PLEYDELL [1702]

question, he ought also to be without remedy; and therefore the dismission of his bill was a necessary consequence of the judges certificate.

After hearing counsel on this appeal, the following question was put to the judges, viz.

Whether, supposing the deed of 1764 to have been fraudulently obtained, the deed and letter of the 12th of December 1769, for the additional consideration of £1050 and costs in law and equity in the causes then depending between the said Thomas Smith and Thomas Holled, paid to the respondent Smith after the church became vacant, is in law a good revocation of the presentation of the appellant by the respondent Smith?

And the Lord Chief Baron having delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges present, that it was not in law a good revocation; it was declared, that supposing the deed of 1764 to have been fraudulently obtained, the deed and letter of the 12th of December 1769, was not in law a good revocation of the presentation of the appellant by the respondent Smith; and it was therefore ordered and adjudged, that the decree complained of should be reversed; and that the cause should be remitted back to the Court of Chancery, to do therein as should be agreeable to law and justice.^[1] (M.S. Jour. sub anno 1775/6. p. 890.)

AGREEMENTS.

[124] Case 1.—David Powell, et Ux.,—Appellants; William Pleydell, and another,—Respondents [15th January 1702].

[Mew's Dig. vii. 567; x. 175; xiv. 1367.]

[A. voluntarily agrees to give certain houses to his niece, and the heirs of her body, after the death of himself and his wife, in case they should leave no issue; but no conveyance was executed by A. though he lived above twenty years afterwards. In the mean time, A. becomes indebted by mortgage, judgment, &c. and by his will devises all his estate, both real and personal, to his wife. This agreement is not good against a purchaser for valuable consideration, although he had notice by being a subscribing witness to it.]

Viner, vol. 18. p. 118. ca. 5. 2 Eq. ca. ab. 682, ca. 1.

John Fletcher, esq. being entitled to several houses and lands in and about the city of Dublin, and both he and his wife having a great kindness for the appellant Elizabeth, who was her niece and god-daughter, he gave her the following writing; viz.

I John Fletcher, of the city of Dublin, merchant, de hereby promise and engage myself, that I will give unto my niece Elizabeth Burton, so many houses and lands, in and about the city and suburbs of the city of Dublin, as do now amount to the pearly value of £60 or £70 sterling, per ann. the same to come to my said niece, or the heirs of her body, from and immediately after the death of me the said John Fletcher, and Elizabeth my now wife, if we die and leave no child; otherwise this present writing to be void and of none effect. And I do further promise and engage, that I will perfect such deed or conveyance of the premises unto the said Elizabeth Burton (at her marriage if it be desired) according to the true intent and meaning of these presents, as counsel learned in the law

↑ Accordingly on the 28th of April 1777, the cause was again heard, when the Lord Chancellor declared, that the deed of the 8th of February 1764 was fraudulently obtained; and therefore, that the deed and letter of the 12th of December 1769 was not in law a good revocation of the presentation of the plaintiff to the living in question; and it was ordered, that the plaintiff should be at liberty to apply to the Bishop of Lincoln for institution and induction to the said living. And it was further ordered, that the plaintiff should pay to the Bishop of Lincoln his costs of the suit; but as between the rest of the parties, his Lordship did not think fit to give costs on either side.

460

[1] Accordingly on the 28th of April 1777, the cause was again heard, when the Lord Chancellor declared, that the deed of the 8th of February 1764 was fraudulently obtained; and therefore, that the deed and letter of the 12th of December 1769 was not in law a good revocation of the presentation of the plaintiff to the living in question; and it was ordered, that the plaintiff should be at liberty to apply to the Bishop of Lincoln for institution and induction to the said living. And it was further ordered, that the plaintiff should pay to the Bishop of Lincoln his costs of the suit; but as between the rest of the parties, his Lordship did not think fit to give costs on either side.

[1]