Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1021

suffer him to be present at such appraisement, and got the same made by some friends of their own, who greatly undervalued some parts, and totally omitted other parts of the testator's estate.

It therefore became necessary to compel the executors to account in the Court of Chancery, and a bill was, on the 10th of February 1700, filed against them in the name of the respondents, for that purpose; to which bill they put in an answer; stating the appraisement which had been made, as a just and true one; and insisting, that they ought not to account for the summer profits of the testator's farm.

On the 15th of December 1701 the cause was heard before the Lord Keeper Wright, who decreed the defendants to account for the testator's personal estate, and the summer profits of his farm, and to pay the plaintiffs their legacies, and residuary part, according to the will; and it was referred to a Master, to take the account, and make the defendants all just allowances; but his Lordship reserved the consideration of costs, until after the account should be taken.

In the course of the proceedings before the Master, the defendants put in two insufficient examinations, and which, in several instances, varied from the account set forth in the answer: in the answer, the defendants accounted only for seventy ewes and lambs, of the value of £32 10s.; but, by their examinations, it appeared there were sixty-nine sheep and fifty-seven lambs, which [373] were sold for £45 15s. 8d. besides £5 16s. 6d. received for their wool: and, by the answer, the testator's cows were valued at only £85; but by examinations, it appeared that they were sold for upwards of £100—and so in several other particulars.

The Master having made his report, both parties took exceptions to it; and on the 14th of October 1704, these exceptions, together with the matter of costs, came on to be argued before the Lord Keeper, when the plaintiffs exceptions were allowed, and those of the defendants disallowed; and it appearing from the answer, examinations, and other proofs in the cause, that the defendants had very much misbehaved themselves in their trust, the court ordered them to pay the costs of the suit, to be taxed by the Master.

By a second report, the Master certified that there was £493 in the hands of the defendants, which belonged to the plaintiffs, and which he appointed them to bring in before him, to be laid out for the plaintiffs benefit, according to the decree; he also certified, that he had taxed the plaintiffs costs at £193 2s. 1d. This report was afterwards duly confirmed, and the costs were paid accordingly.

On the 26th of May 1705 the defendants preferred a petition, saying, that they were willing in all things to comply with the decree, but prayed a month's time to bring the £493 into court; and this was accordingly granted. When this time was elapsed, they preferred another petition, again stating their willingness to comply with the decree, and that they had in part performed the same, but were not able to complete it within the time limited; and therefore prayed three months further time to bring the money into court, offering to give security for such payment in that time but, after hearing counsel on both sides, it was ordered that the defendants should have only a fortnight's time to bring in the money.

Instead of complying with the terms of this last order, the defendants appealed from the whole of what the Court of Chancery had done; insisting (F. Page, H. Collett), that they were only executors in trust; that no fraud or corruption had been proved against them; and that, to take away all presumption of a breach of trust, they had offered to justify themselves by a trial at law, in any manner the court should direct, but were refused it. That the appellants having been served with a writ of execution of the decree, and threatened with attachments and further process thereon, if they did not forthwith pay down the money and costs reported against them; and not being able to appeal, as the parliament was not then sitting, they paid the costs, not as an acquiescence in the order, but to induce the court to stop further proceedings for some time; and, when they afterwards applied for further time to pay the money, it was in hopes only of an opportunity of appealing, and therefore ought not now to be objected against them. That they had accordingly, as soon as possible, appealed from these orders; and as they had been put to a great deal of vexatious and unnecessary trouble, and had proved themselves of unquestionable cre-[374]-dit and reputation; they ought, instead of paying, to have had their costs decreed them, especially as the testator had so ordered it, by express words in his will.