Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1107

1707, or that the appellant should have the benefit of such money or securities, as Lake had from the Newells, and which ought the rather to have been directed, for that in such securities it was provided, that the same should secure what Lake did or should advance or lend to the Newells and the wilful assignment of such securities, or the giving to any other creditors of the Newells a preference to the £5000 so owing by them to Lake on their notes, was a further act of injustice in Lake, and an additional evidence of the effect which the gratuity of two hundred guineas had upon him. It was therefore hoped, that the decree, so far as it charged the appellant or his estate with the £5000 and interest, would be reversed; and that he should be permitted to redeem his estate, upon payment of what Lake had paid to Mrs. Tighe, with interest for the principal money only, and such costs as the decree had directed.

On the other side it was contended (J. Jekyll, T. Lutwyche), that upon full and clear proofs, and upon the appellant's own confession in his answer, the respondent, Sir Biby Lake, appeared to be an honest creditor for £5000 actually paid by his testator to the appellant himself. That the appellant not only acquiesced under the decree for above three years, but by his subsequent proceedings thereupon had complied therewith, by entering into and litigating the account [500] thereby directed, and by setting up a purchasor, and proceeding to a sale of the estate, in order to pay the debt, which he now thought proper to controvert. That the appellant was in possession of the estates re-conveyed to him by virtue of another branch of the decree, against which he now appealed. That his whole equity, in respect of the £5000 was founded upon groundless and improbable conjectures, without the least shadow of proof, and contradictory to his own acts and deeds, manifested in several successive conveyances under his hand and seal. And that it did not appear by any of the appellant's proofs, that the respondents the Newells were any way indebted to him; but, on the contrary, it appeared by undeniable evidence in both causes, that the appellant was, at the time of making the £5000 mortgage, and still remained very greatly indebted to the Newells.

After hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered, that the House would reserve giving judgment on the point in question, till the account was finished between the appellant and the Newells, as directed by the Court of Chancery, with this direction, that the Master should also make a rest, how the account stood on the 13th of September 1707, and that Sir Biby Lake should have notice given him, from time to time, of the attendances before the Master, and might controvert the same, as he should be advised; and that either side should be at liberty to apply to the Court of Chancery, for any further direction, for the better taking of such account, as should be just; and that after such account taken, and a report made and confirmed, the parties were to resort back, for the further order of the House. (Jour. vol. 20. p. 453.)^[1]