Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/240

spondent, Samuel Smith, his son and heir, in 1694, exhibited his bill against Farrel, to be let in to redeem, and for an account of the profits, and obtained a decree accordingly; and that appellant's mother died in 1689; and, 1692, Farrel, his father, married respondent Katherine, and had by her a son which was dead, and a daughter living; and, in 1695, was killed in Flanders, and dying intestate, respondent [148] Katherine administered, and became intitled to the money due on Nangle's mortgage as part of his personal estate; and that respondent, Smith, revived his cause against her; and upon stating the account between those parties, 1698l. 2s. 9d. appeared due on the mortgage, 25th, March, 1699, on payment whereof respondent Katherine was decreed to deliver up the possession, and assign the said mortgage to respondent, Smith; and that Farrel, about 1694, borrowed 265l. from respondent Dowling, on his bond or judgment, and for further security deposited the original mortgage, or made some assignment thereof; and Dowling refusing to deliver up the said deed, unless by direction of the court, respondents, White and wife, about 1639, exhibited their bill against him in the said court, and obtained a decree that he should deliver it on payment of what should appear due to him; and that appellant, about Easter term, 1698, exhibited his bill on pretence that the money so lent by his father, was part of his mother's marriage portion, as stated by appellant, which respondents by their answer denied, and said they were strangers to that settlement, and insisted that the said mortgage, though in fee, being only a security for money, was a chattel in equity, and belonged to respondent, Katherine, as administratrix, and liable to Farrel's debts; and that appellant's cause was then heard before the judges, 11th May, 1700, who after time to consider, decreed as stated by appellant; and that on a re-hearing, such further decree as before stated was made, and respondents insisted that though it was a mortgage in fee, yet it ought in equity to be construed a chattel, especially where creditors are concerned, and that it was not proved in the cause that the mortgage money was any part of the marriage portion; and though it were, yet the settlement was voluntary and after the marriage, and ought not to affect creditors. (R. Turner.)

Die Lunæ, 12 Maii, 1701. After hearing council upon this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged by the Lords, that the same should be dismissed, and the decree and orders appealed from affirmed. Lords Journ. vol. xvi. p. 678.

The appellant made this case: That an agreement was entered into between respondent, Sir James Langham, and appellant's grandfather, George, Lord Delamer, for a marriage between the Hon. Henry Booth, his son and heir apparent, and respondent's only daughter, Mary, with whom respondent was to give 20,000l. portion; and that articles of agreement, dated 17th June, 1670, were accordingly drawn up privately, and without the aid of council, and executed between appellant's grandfather and respondent, for the marriage to be had on the 7th of July then next; and thereby respondent covenanted to pay the grandfather the 20,000l. viz. 10,000l. within three months after the marriage, and 10,000l. within six months after respondent's death: And that appellant's grandfather thereby covenanted with respondent, on payment of the first 10,000l. to settle on his son and respondent's daughter an annuity of 1500l. to be secured out of lands of greater value, for present maintenance, and for the daughter's jointure, whereof 400l. was during the coverture to be paid to her for her separate use; and that on payment of the other 10,000l. he would add 600l. a year to the 1500l. and it was agreed that appellant's grandfather should have the same power he then had over his estate, to provide for his younger children as he might think fit: That the marriage was soon after bad, and a settlement accordingly executed by the grandfather, and the