Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1325

double demise, one by the said Peter and Dennis Daly, and the other by the said John Kelly of Lackane, whereto the appellants made themselves defendants; but they not having the original settlement of 1702 to produce, and Ulick, who had an in-[264]-disputable remainder in that settlement, being living, they could make no defence; so that the plaintiffs in the ejectment obtained judgment.

Ulick Farrel dying without issue in 1747, the remainder limited by the settlement of 1702, to Mary, Margery, and Margaret, the daughters of Sarah French, and the heirs male of their respective bodies, took effect in possession; and Margery the mother of the appellant Arthur French, who was then living, and the appellants Edmund Netterville and Arthur French, having received information that all the family deeds and papers, and particularly the deeds of 1702 and 1710, were in some of the respondents hands, applied to them for a production thereof; and they also applied to the respondent John Kelly of Lackane, eldest son of Mary the eldest daughter of Sarah French, to join with them in a suit for recovering possession of the said estate; but he failed so to do, and all the respondents refused to produce the deeds.

The appellants and the said Margery were therefore under a necessity of applying to a court of equity, to compel a production of the said settlement of 1702; and accordingly, on the 17th of February 1758, they filed their bill in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, against the respondents, stating their title under the limitations in the deed of April 1702, to Mary, Margery, and Margaret, the daughters of Sarah French, on failure of issue male of her three sons; and they offered to confirm the leases made by James Farrel, and the respondent Jane's jointure, which her husband had a power of making, by the deed of 1702, and prayed a production of that deed, and that they might bring the same, and also the deed of July 1710, into court; and that the remainder limited to the said Mary, Margery, and Margaret, by the deed of April 1702, might be established, and such of the plaintiff's as appeared to be entitled to the possession of the lands, or to any share thereof, might be decreed thereto; and that the plaintiff's might be decreed to two third parts of the said lands, subject to the leases, and to the respondent Jane's jointure; and also to an account of the rents and profits, (except of the lands in jointure,) and for a partition of the premises between the appellants and the respondent John Kelly of Lackane.

Pending this suit, Margery, the appellant Arthur French's mother, died, leaving him her eldest son and heir; and the appellants were by an order permitted to carry on the cause in their own names.

To this bill the respondents Richard Caddell (using the name of Farrel) and Robert Caddell put in their joint answer, admitting the fine levied by Arthur and Sarah French, and the deeds of April 1702, and July 1710, which last they alledged was executed by Sarah of her own free will, and also the will of James Farrel, and thereby derived a title to the respondent Richard.

The respondent John Kelly of Lackane also put in his answer to the like effect, but declined any particular right which he might have by virtue of the conveyance from Ulick Farrel.

[265] The respondent John Kelly of Fidane, and Jane his wife, put in their answer, and the said Jane claimed the benefit of the settlement made on her marriage with James Farrel, as being a purchaser thereof for a valuable consideration, without notice of the settlement of 1702.

Pending the suit, Rosa Farrel died without issue, and the said Dennis Daly, who had survived Peter Daly, the other trustee in James Farrel's will, also died, leaving Dennis Daly his eldest son; and a bill of revivor being filed against the said Dennis Daly the son, the proceedings in the cause were by order duly revived; and the said Dennis Daly put in his answer, submitting to act as the court should direct.

Issue being joined, several witnesses were examined; and publication being passed, the cause was heard by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, on the 16th, 17th, 18th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th of February 1764, and his Lordship was pleased, on the 12th of March following, to dismiss the appellant's bill, without costs.

From this decree of dismission the plaintiffs in the cause appealed; insisting (W. de Grey, A. Forrestor), that the deed of 1702 was a most fair and just settlement of Sarah French's estate, for the benefit of her children by her former husband; and had she died without revoking it, the several limitations and provisions therein con-