Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/490

appellant, and his sisters Elizabeth and Catherine, and the heirs of their bodies respectively, to receive £60 per ann. a-piece for ever, out of the profits of the said premises; then to permit such person, as the said John Grene should by deed or will appoint, to receive £60 per ann. more thereout; and then to permit Giles Grene to receive the residue of the profits for his life; with remainder to his first and other sons successively in tail male; remainder to his daughters in tail; remainder to the appellant for life; remainder to his first and other sons successively in tail male; remainder to his daughters in tail; with remainder, as to one moiety, to Elizabeth; and as to the other moiety, to Catherine; with like limitations in tail to their respective issues male and female; and with cross remainders over to each of them. But subject to a proviso, that if Elizabeth or Catherine should marry in their father's lifetime, and respectively receive from him a portion of £1000, then the trust for the payment of their £60 per ann. was to cease.

This being a voluntary settlement, and John Grene having, after the death of his first wife, married the respondent Joanna, by whom he had issue the other respondent; hie, by indentures of lease and release, dated the 8th and 9th of September 1685, re-settled the premises, and in some measure varied the former limitations; but still, the appellant's £60 per ann. expectant on the death of his father, and his contingent estate for life, with remainder to his sons successively in tail male, expectant on the death of his brother Giles without issue, were preserved.

The appellant turning out to be an extravagant young man, and his father being apprehensive that his future interest in the estate [144] might become a prey to sharpers, by articles, dated the 29th of June 1694, agreed to pay him £50 and to settle an annuity of £100 per ann. on trustees, for the appellant's life, in full satisfaction for his £60 per ann. after his father's death, and of his future interest in the premises, upon the contingency above-mentioned. And this agreement was mutually executed by both parties, by two several deeds, bearing date respectively the 5th of July following.

In June 1696, Giles, the eldest son, died without issue; and in January 1702, John, the father, made his will, and thereby devised the said four shares of the New River water, to the respondent Joanna, and made her sole executrix, and residuary legatee.

The appellant, in Michaelmas term 1706, after the death of his father, exhibited his bill in Chancery against the respondents, to be relieved against the articles and deed of 1694, suggesting, that they were obtained from him by surprize, and other unfair means, and without any adequate consideration; or, if his annuity of £100 should be established, that he might receive the same free from taxes, which the defendant Joanna had thought proper to deduct; and that she might pay him £145, being the amount of the taxes so deducted.

On the 11th of November 1709, the cause was heard before the Lord Chancellor Cowper when his Lordship declared his opinion, that such right and interest as the plaintiff had under the settlement of 1674, was well conveyed to his father by the articles and deed of 1694; and therefore decreed, that so much of the bill as sought to have an account under the settlement of 1674, and to set aside the articles and deed of 1694, should stand dismissed, without prejudice to the appellant's issue: but as to the annuity, his Lordship declared, that the same ought to be free from taxes, and decreed the payment, thereof accordingly; but did not think fit to give costs on either side.

From this decree the plaintiff appealed; insisting (W. Whitelocke), that the settlement of 1685 was an unjust attempt to break in upon that of 1674; that the agreement of 1694 being gained by surprize, and without adequate consideration, was a continuance of the same fraud; and, that having prevailed in the matter of taxing his annuity, he ought to have had his costs.

But to this it was answered (E. Northey, J. Jekyll), that the settlement of 1685 did not injure the right of the appellant, or his issue male, but left the same as it stood upon the settlement of 1674; nor were his issue injured by the agreement of 1694, but their right still remained unimpeached, and was particularly protected by the decree. That it fully appeared by the proofs in the cause, that the agreement was made with great solemnity and deliberation; that the appellant perfectly