Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/225

question) of which above 1000l. per annum was the inheritance of the Morgans, to which appellants had no title, but under the very settlement of 1776, by which 5000l. is appointed to be raised as aforesaid. (Henry Poley.)

Die Martis 8 Aprilis, 1701. Upon hearing council on these appeals, it was ordered and adjudged by the Lords that both appeals should be dismissed, and the decree complained of affirmed. Lords Journ. vol. xvi. p. 645. (Eq. Ab. 269. 2 Vern. 348.)

The appellant made this case: Richard Williams seized in fee of lands in Brecon, Radnor, and Hereford; by his will in writing devised to his wife thereout a rent charge of 250l. for her life, in lieu of dower, and devised the inheritance, charged with debts and legacies, to his brother Thomas, who upon his death became seised, and by marriage deeds of lease and release, 22d and 23d October, 1696, settled part of his estate, to the value of 340l. per annum, upon Elizabeth, his intended wife, for her jointure, and settled the whole estate (about 687l. per annum,) upon the issue male of that marriage, remainder to himself and his right heirs; and if he died without issue male, and left one daughter, that then the premisses should be charged with 3000l. to be paid to that daughter at her age of twenty-one years, and 150l. per annum for her maintenance in the mean time; which marriage took effect, and, 18th May, 1697, Thomas Williams (having then no issue) made his will, and thereby charged his estate with his debts, and subject thereto devised the whole estate to his brother in law, and nearest kinsman, Doctor David Williams, and his issue male, remainder to Henry Williams and his heirs for ever, and made Doctor Williams executor, and died 29th May, 1698, without issue male, leaving respondent Elizabeth, the infant then about three months old, his only child, and Doctor Williams immediately entered, and being in quiet possession in the premisses, and finding the debts and incumbrances were more than the estate could answer, proposed to sell the estate to the widow, which she at first agreed to, and articled with Doctor Williams accordingly; but after she desired to be released from those articles which the Doctor in favour to her (as she acknowledged) complied with; after which the Doctor and Henry proposed to sell to appellant, who had other manors adjoining; and articles, dated 14th January, 1699, were executed between Doctor Williams, Henry Williams, and appellant, whereby they covenanted [118] to convey the fee simple of the real estate, and all the goods and stock thereon (which had been the goods and stock of Thomas) unto appellant; and in consideration thereof appellant covenanted to pay 200l. for the personal estate, 4500l. for the real estate, and 3000l. to Elizabeth, the infant, when she attained her age of 21 years, and till then 150l. per annum, for the interest of it: and to pay the widow of Richard Williams (then the wife of Doctor Page) the rent charge of 250l. per annum for her life, and to permit Elizabeth, the widow of Thomas, to enjoy 340l. per annum for her life; and Doctor Williams and Henry Williams, covenanted to pay the debts of Richard and Thomas Williams; and possession of the whole estate was immediately delivered to appellant, who, whilst fines and conveyances were preparing, provided the purchase money, and, in confidence of the articles, disbursed several considerable sums for taxes and repairs; and by direction of Doctor Williams actually paid, in part of the purchase money, 1029l. 3s. 4d. a mortgage debt to one Oades, and paid Doctor Williams himself 300l. more; but the wife of Doctor Page, who was widow of Richard Williams, dying before the conveyances were perfected, Elizabeth, the widow, of Thomas gave out that Doctor Williams and Henry had no power to sell the real estate, but that respondent Elizabeth was intitled to it; wherefore appellant, 29th January, 1699, preferred his bill for discovery of title, and for a specific performance of the articles; and Elizabeth, the widow, and respondent, by their answer, insisted respondent was intitled under the will of Thomas; whereupon the creditors preferred their bill, and their debts were ad-