Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/241

first 10,000l. paid: That the grandfather intending a provision for his younger children, by indenture, dated the 21st September, 1680, charged several of his mannors, lands, and tenements, with divers large sums of money, and directed that the remaining 10,000l. should be paid to his four trustees, to be by them applied in aid of the charges so imposed, and in ease of his estates; and that the four trustees were dead, and that the respondent, Ann, was administratrix, with the will annexed of the survivor: That George, Lord Delamar, had died about [150] fourteen years ago, leaving said Henry his eldest, appellant's father, who was afterwards created Earl of Warrington, and died about five years ago, leaving appellant, his eldest son and heir, under age, upon whose death the estates charged descended upon appellant; and said Mary, appellant's mother, having died about eight years ago, appellant was intitled in law and equity to the remaining 10,000l. to disengage his estates from the charges so imposed by the grandfather, and divers others imposed by Earl Henry: And that appellant had applied to respondent, his grandfather, to have it paid at a reasonable discount, or to have security given for it payable after his death; and that this was reasonable, as respondent was very aged and infirm, and had lately married one of disproportionate birth and fortune, who was waiting woman to his former wife, and had made some voluntary settlement of his real and personal estate for her benefit, and was about to dispose of the residue of his property, so that the future payment of the 10,000l. was in manifest danger of being frustrated; and that appellant had filed his bill in Chancery to have the 10,000l. secured accordingly, but that upon the hearing his bill was dismissed, there being (as alleged) no precedent for such a bill: But appellant insisted that, it having been agreed that there was a present debt of 10,000l. due to him, though the time of payment not in strictness come, it was but just that the debtor should give caution, that when the time came about the money might be recoverable; and that respondent's aliening his estate, was a declaration of his purpose to disappoint the payment; and that such a disabling of himself to make it good, ought to be considered as a present breach of the agreement: And that the articles agreeing to pay the 10,000l. by a reasonable construction, amounted to an agreement to leave a sufficient estate whereout it might be paid; and that these articles having been drawn privately in the family, without the assistance of council, ought to be aided according to the apparent intent of the parties; that it was but reasonable respondent should be restrained from frustrating his own solemn agreement, by any wilful act; and that the word covenant in the articles, was not intended as a security to be relied on, but as a more solemn engagement, the parties then relying wholly on each other's honour: And further insisted, that appellant having his estate charged higher in prospect of this 10,000l. than otherwise it would, [151] and it being to be applied in ease of his estate, he was interested to see that the payment should not be prevented. (W. Dobbyns.)

The respondent, on the other hand, shewed, that the marriage was brought about by the importunity of appellant's grandfather, and that the articles had been drawn by the grandfather's directions, and by his agent, and that appellant's bill did not suggest any agreement for payment of the said 10,000l. before respondent's death, nor for security in the interim; nor that respondent was less able to perform the agreement than when it was entered into; and that the grandfather and father had accepted these articles as the only security, and that they and appellant had for near thirty years rested satisfied therewith; and that respondent's estate was now better than when the articles were entered into, and that he would never have agreed to the marriage, had any security besides the articles been required; and that the grandfather was left at full liberty as to his own estate, and not bound to settle any part save the jointure, in any manner on the issue of the marriage. That the cause was heard 24th February, 1698. when the Lord Chancellor, with great clearness, dismissed the bill; and insisted, that though a thousand such cases had been, such a decree as that sought by the appellant never had been made; and that if appellant should prevail, it would be a precedent of extraordinary consequence, appellant desiring the court to make a new agreement for the parties. (T. Powys. Hen. Poley.)

Die Mercurii, 8 Martii, 1698. This petition and appeal brought in. Lords Journ. vol. xvi. p. 397.