Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1088

month a writ of inquiry of damages was executed, upon which the jury found £2089 5s. damages and costs; and on the 16th, judgment was given for the appellant Henckell, for £2135 for damages and costs, which judgment was signed and entered the same day.

All the other appellants, except the Bank, took the like judgments out of the assets de futuro; and Mrs. Morice, at their request, and after Henckell's having executed his said writ of inquiry, viz. on the 11th of February 1731, to save the estate the expence of executing writs of inquiry, and on an agreement, that matters should stand in all respects the same as if a writ of inquiry had been executed, and that the said other appellants should be in the same condition as Henckell, confessed damages to the said other appellants. But none of the appellants, except Henckell, signed their judgments of assets quando acciderint, till after the 18th of April 1732, except Glover and Voght, and they did not sign theirs till the 8th of March 1731.

The Bank refusing to take judgment of assets quando acciderint, replied to Mrs. Morice's plea, and went to trial; and by that means, their judgment was last of all, being of Hilary term 1735.

The cause in Chancery, wherein Weale and others were plaintiffs, was heard on the 24th of July 1734, when Mr. Morice's real estate was declared to be well subjected to his debts by his will and it was referred to the Master to take an account of the demands of the plaintiffs in that cause; and an account was decreed of the testator's personal assets, and of the rents and profits of his real estate, and in case of a deficiency, his real estate was directed to be sold for payment of his debts; and the respondent Katherine was ordered to administer the assets in a course of administration; and all usual directions were given for taking the said accounts.

On the 8th of February 1731, the respondent Katherine exhibited her bill in the Court of Chancery, against the several creditors, by decrees and judgments, stating the several matters al-[472]-ready mentioned, and praying, that all proceedings at law against her might be stayed by injunction, and for a discovery of the reality of the said creditors demands; and that an account of her testator's assets might be taken, under the directions of the court, and that the same might be administered as far as they would extend in a due course of administration; regard being had to the nature and superiority of the creditors' demands, and that she might be protected and indemnified in paying a due obedience to the said decrees; and likewise praying, that the Bank might admit her to transfer and dispose of the said £3000 Bank stock of her testator's, which stood in his name, and which they had refused to let her transfer, and for general relief.—And, on the 7th of May 1734, the respondent Katherine filed her bill of revivor and supplemental bill, in order to revive the said suit against the representatives of the parties who had died after filing her original bill; and by way of supplement, stated the second decree upon the Master's report in Colemore's cause, and the subsequent report in pursuance of that decree, and the obedience she had paid thereto as before stated; and also the subsequent proceedings on the said actions at law, which had been had since the filing her original bill.

To this bill the several defendants put in their respective answers, and all the appellants, by their answers, thought proper to insist that the said two decrees were fraudulent, and obtained by collusion; and therefore the appellants, the judgment creditors, insisted they ought not to be restrained from proceeding at law, for recovery of their respective demands against the respondent Katherine; and that she had brought these difficulties upon herself; and that there was no foundation for a Court of Equity to interpose, to the prejudice of those who had obtained judgments at law, and were equally fair and honest creditors with those to whom, as they alledged, the respondent Katherine had contrived to give an undue preference; and they also insisted, that their judgments ought to be preferred to the said two decrees, and be first satisfied out of the testator's assets, in regard a decree in a Court of Equity was not equal to a judgment at law.—The appellants Benjamin Weale and his co-appellants insisted on a distribution of the testator's assets equally amongst all the creditors, who were of equal degree at the testator's death, as far as the same would go.

The Bank, by their answer, further insisted to retain the £3000 Bank-stock, that stood in the name of the said Humphry Morice at his death, towards satisfaction of their debt.—And the respondents, the creditors, under the two first decrees, insisted,