Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/281

her father's doing her right, and did not see the bill till a year after, and that she could not obtain a copy of the award till three months after the answer was put in; and that appellants, in April, 1701, first heard that a decree was made against them, and on search discovered that Harcourt's bill recited, and tended to establish the award, which they found awarded nothing to the lady, save her jointure lands during life (about 300l. per annum, settled on her by Sir Richard after his marriage and before his will) and her own jewels, worth about 900l. and 1350l. in money, and that she was to convey to respondent and his heirs all her title to the rest of the real and personal estate; and that the award was not recited in her said answer, which expressed that she admitted such to be made as the bill set forth, and was willing to perform it so as she might be indemnified by a decree, and might enjoy her jointure lands, and be well secured against respondent's children and Sir Richard's creditors:—And that appellants further discovered that respondent had obtained a decree at the Rolls, 16th May, 1700, as upon a bearing on bill and answer, that the award should be confirmed, and that [235] appellants should accordingly convey to Respondent, he giving security to indemnify them against Sir Richard's debts; and that appellants had no notice of the hearing, nor over employed council or agent to appear or act for them; and that the Master therefore reported the decree irregular, but that such report was afterwards, 31st October, 1701, discharged by the Lord Keeper, as it appeared that a Mr. Filmer had taken upon him to act as their council in opening the answer; and that in truth respondent procured him to do so; and that a further irregularity was discovered at this examination, viz. that neither bill or answer was filed till after the decree; but that appellants not being proper to complain as to the answer, whilst the order of May, 1700, stood in their way, procured a re-hearing of the cause, and had leave to move at the same time to have the lady's answer amended; But that on hearing their petition in that behalf, the Court discharged the same, so that appellants could not make their defence, not having liberty to put the truth of their case in issue by a proper answer; and therefore the Court proceeded to re-hear the cause upon bill and answer, 25th April, 1702, but made no material alteration in the former decree, save that the conveyance directed to be made by appellants to respondent is declared subject to the trust in Sir Richard's will, and that respondents two sons, so far as they were concerned, consented to appellants enjoyment of the jointure lands; and that by subsequent proceedings appellants were confined to an insufficient security for their indemnity; and tho' by the will the lady had power to sell what part she pleased of the real estate of 1600l. per annum for payment of the debts, and was to enjoy the residue during her life, yet by the award she was to be deprived of all the real estate, save her own jointure lands of 300l. per annum, and that no care was taken to make her a title thereto, or for vacating the enrollment of respondent's pretended settlement, which tended to defeat her and the creditors also: And appellants complained, that by the award the lady was to have nothing in lieu of the woods, personal estate, jewels, and 1350l. and that respondent had no claim save by the enrollment of his pretended settlement, the validity whereof was never judicially tried; and insisted that the award and answer so imposed upon the lady, ought not to conclude appellants, who did not seek to alter the answer, as to any confession or [236] denial therein, but barely in that clause whereby she was made to say that she was willing to submit to, and perform the award, when it is plain she knew not what the award contained: And that there were many precedents in Chancery for giving liberty to amend answers, where it appeared there had been a surprize or ill practice: Wherefore appellants prayed that the decrees and proceedings might be reversed, and they redressed, in relation to the answer and award. (J. Pratt.)

The respondent on the other band shewed, that Sir Richard Anderson had one only daughter, Elizabeth, some time since deceased, who married respondent Simon, and by him had issue Respondents, Henry and Richard, and three daughters; and that Sir Richard being seized in fee of a considerable estate, subject to many debts and incumbrances, by deeds of lease and release, 25th and 26th March, 1694, settled the same, so as after his own life, and the life of respondent Simon, the same should go in remainder to the other respondents his grandsons, and duly acknowledged that settlement in the Court of Queen's Bench the next