Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/227

bills respondent and the other defendants having answered, several witnesses were examined on all sides, and the causes were heard before the Lord Keeper, assisted by the Master of the Rolls, Justice Powell and Justice Blencowe, 18th June, 1700, when the court took time to consider; and 8th day of July following declared that he, the Master of the Rolls, said two Judges, and likewise the Lord Chief Justice Treby, (the case having been delivered to him in writing by his Lordship's order) were all, on consideration of the whole matter, of opinion, that an estate tail in all the said premisses was vested in respondent Elizabeth by the will of Thomas Williams, her father, so that the court could not oblige a performance of the articles; and therefore ordered that the appellant's bill should stand dismissed, and upon the creditors bill it was ordered, that it be referred to a Master of the Court to state the debts, and in case the personal estate should fall [121] short, then so much of the real estate should be sold to pay them; and that appellant should account for what he received out of the real estate, and be allowed what he had laid out upon the said premisses in lasting improvements, and that he should be paid what he had paid on account of the purchase, and taking in of incumbrances, with interest and costs, and thereupon he to assign and re-convey to respondent. And respondent insisted that it was the plain intent of her father, that she should enjoy the estate after the debts and legacies paid; and that a strained construction of the will ought not to be made to disinherit her in favour of a remote relation. (Henry Poley. Richard Buckly.)

Die Sabbati, 12 Aprilis, 1701. Upon hearing council upon this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged by the Lords that the same should be dismissed, and that the order of dismission and decree therein complained of should be affirmed. Lords Journ. vol. xvi. p. 650.

The appellants made this case; George, Earl of Kildare, 23d October, 1641, granted a lease (inter alia) of Killinure and Balline Clough, in the county of Westmeath, in Ireland, to Sir James Dillon for 36 years, at 37l. 10s. rent, and 15th February, 1656, Earl Wentworth his son, (Earl George being dead) in consideration of the surrender of former leases, and of 255l. paid him, demised the premisses to Ridgley Hatfield (since deceased) for 29 years, at the same rent of 37l. 10s. for the first 18 years, and 40l. per annum afterwards, and covenanted that the premisses were free from incumbrances; and 23d February, 1656, Ridgley Hatfield, for 127l. 10s. assigned part of the premisses to appellant Handcock for the remainder of his term, paying unto Earl Wentworth and his heirs, for the first 4 years, 5l. per annum, and the next 14 years 10l. per annum, and for the remaining 11 years 20l. per annum; Sir James Dillon assigned his lease to Thomas, Viscount Dillon, who being indebted by recognizance to Arthur, Viscount Ranelagh, he, Lord Ranelagh, in November, 1675, by an extent on the recognizance, possessed himself of that lease, of which about 21 years were then unexpired.

Handcock and Hatfield having no notice of that title, were forced to buy it in from Lord Ranelagh for 220l. and afterwards held the land, and paid the reserved rent to Earl Wentworth until 1663, when he died: And Lord Dillon (having been beyond sea with King Charles the second) was on his return, in 1663, restored by a decree of the Court of Claims, and put into possession under an injunction, for the remainder of the term demised by Earl George; and accordingly enjoyed it till it expired in 1677, and always paid the [128] reserved rent of 37l. 10s. to appellant Handcock, under the 29 years lease to Ridgley Hatfield.

Sir James Shaen was indebted to Handcock by bond, dated 15th February, 1661, 200l. principal money, and six years interest, for which Handcock, in 1677, importuned Sir James Shaen, who then pretended some title to the premisses, and