Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/238

negligence, in putting out the 1000l. and demanded satisfaction against both; alleging that Christy had often expressed his concern that the money, was like to be lost, and that he should think himself obliged to make her some satisfaction by his will, or to some such effect: And that upon a full hearing appellant's bill was dismissed, as well against Bridges as respondents; who insisted that as against them the appeal ought to be dismissed with costs, because there is no pretence or suggestion of fraud in Thomas Christy, who had transacted the security as an act of friendship only, without reward or recompence; and that therefore he ought not to be accountable for the misfortune: And that Christy's expressions of making appellant satisfaction out of his estate, were merely expressions of concern for her misfortune, but could not in any court of law or equity oblige him who had done her no wrong, to make any reparation; however he by his will gave the appellant 20l. per annum for her life, after his wife's death, and gave her nephew (whom he knew she intended her heir) a farm of 60l. per annum, and the value of 2000l. more into her family; without any obligation upon him so to do. (J. Selby.)

And for the respondent Bridges this case was made: That Sir Charles had originally made the mortgage for 250l. to Sir John Marsham, who and his son Sir Robert Marsham, after his decease, advanced more money till it came to 1100l. principal money; and that Sir Robert, and Sir John Marsham, executors of the [144] first mortgagee, by Sir Charles's direction, assigned the mortgage to respondent Bridges, in consideration of 1100l. really and actually paid by him, and that he, 20th April, 1687, believing and being persuaded the premisses were an ample security, joined with Sir Charles Bickerstaffe in the sale of nineteen acres, parcel thereof (the whole being 150 acres in Tunbridge and Spelhurst, Kent,) to or in trust for Sir Thomas Fitch, and thereupon received one year's interest, and 106l. part of his principal money; and that Sir Charles Bickerstaffe neglecting to pay his interest, respondent brought a bill and obtained a decree to foreclose; and that respondent's debt was stated at 1243l. 13s. 6d. in October, 1690, and Sir Charles, from time to time, obtaining orders to enlarge the time for payment of the money, respondent arrested him on his bond for performance of covenants, and by that means got 600l. in part of his debt; and that in 1692, Sir Charles Bickerstaffe, without respondent's privity or assistance, procured 1000l. from Christy (which it seems was appellant's money) and thereupon Sir Charles and Christy, without consulting respondent or any council for him, prepared an assignment for respondent to execute, and made it in consideration of 1000l. paid to the respondents, who took no further notice than to see that the nineteen acres sold away, were excepted, and executed the assignment, and thereupon Christy paid him 790l. (which was all that was due to him) and paid the residue 210l. to Sir Charles Bickerstaffe, and that respondent considered that appellant's name was made use of in trust for Christy, and that though appellant admitted she had notice that the money was in danger within three months after the lending, yet she did not till after Christy's death, and six years after respondent had assigned, bring her bill against respondents, but then for the first time charged a contrivance between respondent and Christy, to defeat appellant of her 1000l. and praying that some of them might repay her; but it appearing to the court that the matter was transacted fairly, her bill was dismissed as against the respondents, but she had a decree against Sir Charles Bickerstaffe, to foreclose him of the equity of redemption: And now appellant objects that the estate is not of value to answer her money, a Mr. Hungerford having been allowed the best purchaser for 600l. but respondent showed that Hungerford had bid merely to quicken Sir Charles to raise the money, but was never reported the purchaser; and respondent, far from think-[145]-ing 600l. the value, after he had joined in the sale of the nineteen acres, offered Sir Charles Bickerstaffe 1200l. for the estate, who refused to take it; the ground rents payable by the builders thereon being 56l. 10s. per annum; and that respondent knew not of any precedent incumbrances, and though it appeared that there were some precedent statutes acknowledged by Sir Charles, the same were satisfied, and assigned to persons who purchased other part of Sir Charles's estate to protect his or their purchases; and that there was not the least unfair proceeding between Christy and respondent.

Die Mercurii, 7 Maii, 1701. After hearing council upon this appeal, it was