Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1022

On the other side it was said (S. Dodd, N. Lechmere), that after a five years prosecution, almost to the ruin of the respondents, and after the appellants had submitted to pay, and had actually paid the costs, and twice, by petition, consented to the decrees, and said they were willing to comply therewith in every thing, it was hoped that the appeal would be dismissed, with exemplary costs.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and the several orders and decrees therein complained of, affirmed; and that the appellants should pay the respondents £20 for their costs. (Jour. vol. 18. p. 54.)

Meredith Lloyd, the appellant's brother, on the 8th of September 1695, signed a bill or note, whereby he acknowledged himself indebted to the appellant in £300; and, on the same day, he executed a bill of sale of all his personal estate to the appellant, for better securing the payment of this debt. He also on the 28th of the same month made his will; and thereby, after directing all his debts to be paid, and making provision for his younger children, appointed his wife Margaret and the appellant executors.

On the 20th of October 1695, Meredith Lloyd died, at a distance from home, whereupon the appellant, who was then with him, took care of his funeral, and made an inventory of his effects; but the personal estate of the testator appearing insufficient to satisfy his debts, the appellant renounced the executorship; and, in consequence thereof, administration was granted to Margaret, the widow, who applied the assets in payment of such of the testator's debts as came to her knowledge; and particularly, in paying the appellant a debt of £46, which was all that he then claimed to be due to him from the testator.

However, about three years afterwards, the appellant set up a demand of the £300 under the bill or note, and in 1699 brought an action against the respondents, and recovered a verdict and judgment for £254 (the £46 before paid to him being deducted by the jury) the defendants being unable to make any good defence to that action, because the assets had been applied in discharging debts of an inferior nature.

[375] But there being some ground to suspect the reality of the appellants said demand; the respondents, in Michaelmas term 1699, exhibited their bill in Chancery against the appellant, and also against Sidney Lloyd, his sister, praying to be relieved against this judgment; suggesting, that both the defendants had insinuated to Meredith Lloyd in his life-time, the necessity of securing his personal estate for the benefit of his children, in order to deprive the plaintiff Margaret, his wife, of her share of it; and that they had thereby prevailed with him to sign and seal the note or bill of the 8th of September 1695, acknowledging himself indebted to the defendant Simon in £300, which was equivalent to the value of his personal estate; but that no money was due from Meredith to Simon, nor was any valuable consideration ever given for such note.

To this bill the defendant Simon put in an answer, and thereby swore, that his brother Meredith was indebted to him in £300, and that the note was given for securing the payment of that debt; and he denied all fraud and ill practice, and all the other equity charged by the bill. The other defendant Sidney also by her answer, denied the fraud suggested against her by the bill, and said she was a stranger to all the