Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1505

only confirmed by a decree obtained against the Countess herself, in her life-time; but also by a subsequent decree, obtained against both the appellant's father and himself, and the executors of the Countess. That these decrees still remained in force, and even if unjust, which they manifestly were not, yet they could not be altered by any original bill; especially, where the persons interested in such leases, were no parties to the suit, nor in any shape before the court. Nor would these leases, if given in evidence, avail the appellant, in his purpose of making the common recovery void; because the feoffment, by Earl Henry, in 1673, made a good tenant to the precipe, notwithstanding the leases. Besides, Mr. Newport never accepted these leases or made any entry or claim by virtue thereof; and therefore they were barred by the statute of limitations, and by subsequent fines. That as to the deed surmised to be made by Earl Henry, to or in trust for Cocks; it did not appear by any proofs in the cause, that any such deed was really executed; or, if it was, that it in any manner concerned the respondents, or the premises in question; nor was it even suggested, that this deed was ever in the respondent's custody or power; and therefore no abstract of it ought to be admitted, and much less the copy of an abstract, which was all that the appellant offered in evidence. And as to the settlement of 14 Car. I. it plainly appeared not to have been secreted by Earl Henry, but was fraudulently concealed by the Countess during his infancy, on purpose to wrong and injure him; and to give colour to the appellant's title, under the subsequent settlement of 16 Car. I. That this prior settlement was brought to light in the manner above stated; and, if it was neither an undue practice, for a plaintiff to bring in a bill in equity to discover settlements unjustly concealed, or for a defendant, when compelled to answer such a bill, to confess the truth of it; it was very strangely inferred, that the settlement having been so fraudulently concealed to Earl Henry's prejudice; he, or any claiming under him, should therefore lose the benefit of it when discovered and retrieved: or, that it should be made [546] use of as an argument for setting aside the former, and establishing the subsequent settlement. That, from the time of Earl Henry's having discovered this former settlement, he always avowed his title under it; and levied fines, made feoffments, suffered a recovery, made mortgages, and acted in all respects as absolute owner of the estate in question. And, as this settlement was prior in point of time to the other, made upon good and valuable considerations, and without any power of revocation; and as the appellant, if he had any title, had his proper remedy at law, it was humbly insisted, that the decree of dismission was just, and that therefore the appeal was groundless, and ought also to be dismissed with costs.

And accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and that the order or decree of dismission therein complained of should be affirmed. (Jour. vol. 17. p. 252.)

By deed inrolled, dated the 19th of January 1634, and by a fine levied in pursuance thereof, the manor of Battles Hall, and the lands thereto belonging in the county of Essex, were, for a valuable consideration, settled, and conveyed to the use of James Waad, for life; with remainder to his first and other sons in tail male; remainder to his daughters in tail general; with other remainders over.

In 1643, this James Waad intermarried with Frances Eltonhead; and, previous to this marriage, the said manor of Battles Hall was settled on her for life for her jointure.

In 1659, James Waad died, leaving the said Frances, his widow, and William, his only son, and the appellant Dame Ann, his only daughter; whereupon Frances, the widow, (who afterwards intermarried with Sir Joseph Douglas,) entered upon Battles Hall, and continued in possession till her death.