Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/533

Lowth, upon the Lord Powerscourt's petition. And as to a new trial, there was no colour to grant one, the contract being proved in the most consistent and plain manner, by many witnesses of fortune and undoubted reputation; and the verdict remaining wholly unimpeached, except by the affidavit of one Brown, which was in itself, and from undoubted proof, inconsistent and impossible to be true. That this contract was not voluntary, but entered into on very valuable considerations, viz. the building a bridge, a school-house, and many other houses, and making other improve-[206]-ments on the premises, besides an advanced rent of £40 per ann. and the considerations of these buildings and improvements had been performed to the value of £1000. Neither did this contract lie dormant for many years, for it was not to be performed till May 1714, and within five months afterwards the respondent exhibited his bill for a discovery of it, not having then found the same; but this inconsistency could not be wondered at, when it was observed, that Chappel was complained of for not insisting on the contract, though he was dead eight years before any one could, or at least need to have insisted on it. That if the appellant had claimed as heir at law, the bill of revivor would certainly have been proper; but as he claimed under a voluntary settlement, the respondent was obliged to proceed by original bill, in the nature of a bill of revivor; and it was conceived, that the verdict and decree against Lord Powerscourt ought to bind the appellant, who came in under a voluntary settlement made by his Lordship, and expectant upon an estate tail limited to him, whereas the respondent's testator was a purchaser for a valuable consideration. That the depositions in the cause were used on both sides, except such as tended to set aside the verdict; as to which the Court objected, having with great care and justice, and extraordinary caution, examined as to that point before the verdict was confirmed; and therefore would not allow an instrument, so proved and established, to be again drawn into question by a new examination. That whoever claims under a voluntary settlement, is bound by any lease, sale, or mortgage, executed after such settlement by the person who made it: and as a decree against a person making a voluntary settlement, will bind him claiming under it, so will a verdict also; and especially where, as in the present case, the person against whom the verdict was obtained, was tenant in tail, and where the settlement itself was dormant and concealed. And as to a specific performance, it was so far from being impracticable, that it was highly just and reasonable; for Richardson's lease being for 21 years, and the respondent's for three lives, were not inconsistent, the lease for lives being a greater interest in law, and what might probably survive the other; it was therefore in such case absolutely necessary to entitle the respondent to the surplus rent during Richardson's lease, and to the lands after the expiration of it; and if the respondent was contented with such an execution of the agreement, the appellant had no reason to complain, especially since he was Lord Powerscourt's representative in every capacity, as heir at law and under the settlement, and as sole executor and residuary legatee; besides, the respondent conceived he had a right in equity to the lands, and ought not to be put to seek a satisfaction in damages out of the assets of Lord Powers court for the breach of this agreement: and therefore it was hoped, that the decree would be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with exemplary costs.

But, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the orders and decrees of the 3d of February [207] 1717, the 19th of November 1719, and the 27th of January, and 9th of April 1721, complained of in the said appeal, should be reversed; and that the respondent's bill in the Court of Chancery in Ireland should be dismissed. (Jour. vol. 22. p. 114.)