Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1515

Tipperary in Ireland, forfeited his estate in the rebellion in that kingdom, anno 1688, and afterwards died, leaving the appellant his only son: and these lands, among other forfeited estates, were, by an act 11th and 12th William III. vested in trustees for the use of the public.

In the 1st year of Queen Anne, a private act of parliament was obtained in favour of the appellant, who was then an infant; by which, on payment of £2000 to the trustees of the Irish forfeitures, they or any seven of them were impowered to convey all the estate whereof the said Sir John Everard was seised on the 2d of November 1688, to Mary Duchess of Devonshire, James Duke of Ormond, William Marquis of Hartington, Richard Lord Viscount Ross, and Thomas Wright Esq. and their heirs, in trust, by sale or mortgage of the premises, to raise the said sum of £2000, and such other sums as should be necessary to discharge the incumbrances affecting the said estate, and also such other sums as should be thought requisite for the maintenance, education, and settlement of the appellant; and then the premises, subject to the payment of those sums, were to be and enure to the use of, and in trust for the appellant, his heirs and assigns for ever: and the said trustees were impowered to authorize any person or persons to execute powers and authorities thereby to them given.

In pursuance of this act, the appellant's trustees executed a letter of attorney to John Butler and Philip Tisdall, authorizing them to receive the rents and profits of the estate, and to execute the powers vested in the said trustees by the said act.

In May 1705, Butler and Tisdall made a mortgage of part of the estate to Sir Humphry Mackworth Bart. in trust for Butler, in order to secure a sum of £1549, which he had expended on the trust-account: and in October following, the trustees made a mortgage of other part of the estate to Dr. William Oldys, for securing £2000 and interest; which latter mort-[562]-gage was afterwards assigned to the respondent, in consideration of £2040.

After the death of Butler, his widow filed a bill in the high court of Chancery, to foreclose the equity of redemption of the mortgage taken in Sir Humphry Mackworth's name; whereupon the appellant exhibited a cross bill against her and the respondent, in respect to her assignment of the said second mortgage, alledging, that both the said mortgages were obtained by fraud: and, on the hearing of both causes on the 10th of May 1710, the Lord Chancellor Harcourt declared, that both the said mortgages appeared to have been made, not for money, but for business done for the infant, and for gratuities and his lordship was of opinion, that the appellant's trustees had not power to mortgage any part of his estate for the payment of gratuities; however, he decreed an account to be taken; and that in the meantime the said mortgage should stand as a security for what (if any thing) should be found due to the widow of the said John Butler; and this decree was afterwards affirmed upon a re-hearing. But, pending this suit, viz. in 1708, the respondent exhibited her bill in the court of Chancery in Ireland, against the appellant and others, praying, that she might be put into possession of the premises comprised in the mortgage to Dr. Oldys, on paying off the prior incumbrances; or that the said premises might be sold to satisfy her demand. To this bill, the appellant by his answer insisted, that the said mortgage had been obtained by fraud and circumvention, and in trust for Butler; that the trustees had no power to mortgage his estate for the payment of gratuities; and that if the mortgage was of any force against the appellant, it could reach no farther than to stand as a security for so much as, upon a fair account, should appear due from him to the widow of the said John Butler.

On the 11th of February 1716, this cause was heard; and upon the hearing thereof, inasmuch as the respondent claimed under Lucy, the widow of the said John Butler, and that Dr. Oldys, who assigned to the respondent, was but a trustee for Butler; the appellant's counsel desired, that the decree made by the lord chancellor of Great Britain, might be road, to the intent that the decree of the court of Chancery in Ireland might be made agreeable thereto; but the lord chancellor of Ireland was pleased to refuse this request, and contrary to the purport of that decree, his lordship decreed, that the respondent should recover against the appellant, and out of the said mortgaged premises, the principal sum of £2000 and the £40 remaining due for interest, when the mortgage was assigned, with the interest which had since grown due thereon, together with her costs; and an account was directed to be taken thereof, and of the several mortgages and incumbrances wherein the other defendants were interested; and it was further ordered, that the respondent should be at liberty to redeem the said mortgaged premises, upon