Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1523

S. Mead), that the said decree of dismission was perfectly agreeable to the rules of equity and justice, and ought therefore to be affirmed; for that by the act of settlement, the decrees of the commissioners were declared to be good, firm, and effectual in law, to all intents and purposes; and were [574] confirmed against the king and his successors, and all and every other person and persons whatsoever, their heirs or assigns and by the act of explanation, letters patent granted in pursuance thereof, were to stand good against all titles and interests whatsoever not decreed by the commissioners; and the patentees were discharged from all demands, other than what were saved in the said letters patent. That there was no proof in the cause of the pretended codicil of Dr. Arthur, on which the appellant's title was solely grounded; the entry of proof in common form in the Spiritual Court not being sufficient proof as to any real estate, nor were the said pretended will and codicil produced: that it appeared by the pretended copies of them in the Spiritual Court, that though the will bore date the 31st of December 1674, and that there was a hand and seal thereto, and the names of four persons subscribed as witnesses; yet, by the copy of the codicil, there appeared neither name nor seal to it, although it was mentioned in the body that the Doctor had put his hand and seal to the same, which afforded a strong presumption that the said codicil was never executed; and especially since the same imported to be a devise of the inheritance of the lands in question, and was dated the 2d of January 1674, without any hand, seal, or witness, two days after the date of the will, which was only a devise of an estate for life, and to which, as appeared by the said copy, there was a hand and seal and four witnesses. That it was in proof, that Dr. Arthur died on the 1st of January 1674, the day before the date of this pretended codicil; and as the respondents, by their answers, had denied any knowledge of the said pretended will and codicil, or that they ever saw the same, or that they believed the Doctor ever made any such will or codicil, the appellant's title was properly triable at law, and he could have no relief in a court of equity. But supposing the appellant had proved this pretended will and codicil, whereas the contrary manifestly appeared; yet by the marriage-articles in 1644, Dr. Arthur covenanted to settle his lands, after his own death without issue male, upon the said John and Dympna, during the life of Dympna, and then to their second son, and the heirs male of his body; and for want of such issue, to the heirs male of the body of the said John; and the appellant had no pretence to be relieved in equity against these articles, nor did he acquire any title under them, he being neither second son, nor heir male of John and Dympna, nor claiming under such second son or heir male; but the respondent Christian claimed under the articles of 1644, the decree and certificate of the commissioners, and the letters patent passed pursuant thereto; besides, the possession of the lands, ever since the death of Dr. Arthur in 1674, had gone according to the said marriage-articles; and the same lands were agreed to be settled on the respondents in the year 1702, when they had no notice of the appellant's pretended title; and therefore it was hoped that the appeal would be dismissed with costs.

[575] Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and the decree of dismission therein complained of, affirmed: and it was further ordered, that the appellant should pay to the respondents the sum of £50 for their costs in respect of the said appeal. (Jour. vol. 21. p. 280.)

William Alcock of Dublin Esq. being seised of a considerable real estate of the yearly value of £1000, and also possessed of a personal estate of about the value of £50,000, on the 12th of April 1717, made his will, and thereby devised part of his real estate to the value of £300 per ann. to William Alcock of Waterford; and bequeathed several legacies to diverse persons, and in particular to the appellants and