Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/283

after the execution of the award, appellant Mary was so well apprized of its purport, and so well satisfied therewith, that, in further performance thereof, she solemnly took leave of her acquaintance in the country, removed her goods, and delivered possession to respondent Simon; who, in order to have the award confirmed, exhibited his bill in Chancery; to which she, by the advice of her said father and council, put in a full answer upon oath, therein confessing the award, and her submission thereto; and a decree was by her, and her then present husband, Sherrard's consent thereupon regularly obtained and enrolled; and that appellants frivolously complaining of irregularity, it was declared by the Court, that the cause was duly brought to a hearing; but the enrollment was afterwards set aside, because it was mentioned therein to be made by the Master of the Rolls, whereas it ought to have been mentioned to have been made by the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England, according to the form of that Court, tho' the cause were heard by the Master of the Rolls: And the cause, upon the appellants petition, was re-heard by the Lord Keeper; who, after a long debate and deliberation, confirmed the former decree, with addition only, of ordering the respondent Simon to give security, strictly according to the award: And that this last decree was duly signed and enrolled, and that respondent Simon had given [239] security in obedience to the decree; himself in 14,000l. and his sureties in 9000l. to indemnify appellants against all incumbrances, debts, and demands, relating to the real or personal estate of Sir Richard Anderson; and that appellant Mary should enjoy what she claimed as her jointure during her life, without molestation of respondents, or any claiming under them; and the Court declared the security sufficient; and that respondents, Henry and Richard, had signed the Register's book according to the Court's direction, thereby consenting that she should hold her jointure clear of them, or any claiming under them: And that though the award and decree had been fully performed on respondent's part, and in great part by appellant Mary, yet she still attempted to overthrow the award, not satisfied that in eleven weeks, which time only she had lived with the old gentleman, she had, in his weakness, procured a jointure of 300l. per annum, 1350l. in money, and jewels of the value of 1500l. besides what she got out of the 4000l. for which she made him mortgage his estate: And as to the fairness of making the award, respondents referred to the affidavits of Mr. Methuen, Mr. Hatcher, and Mr. Andrews, annexed to this appeal; and, that though respondents had followed appellants out of the way to justify themselves in many things not in issue in the cause, yet respondents insisted that the decree, founded on Dame Mary's own answer, could not be reversed, she not having therein complained of the award, or respondent's settlement, or of the pretended undue enrollment thereof, and therefore could not now enter into any of those complaints: And respondents submitted to the Lords, that if this decree should be reversed upon foreign suggestions, not mentioned in the bill or answer, it would be the first precedent of the kind, and many thousand similar decrees might with equal reason be reversed. (W. Dobyns.)

Note. In the three affidavits referred by respondents, and subjoined to the foregoing appeal, it is sworn that appellant Mary before, and her husband, Sherrard, after their marriage, personally applied to, and employed Mr. Filmer to be their council on the hearing; and that the Lord Chancellor Methuen interfored on his daughter's part in the award, by her express direction and solicitation and that appellant, Sherrard, had [240] written him, Mr. Methuen, a letter, expressing that he, Sherrard, had signified to Mr. Filmer his consent to all his wife done in the matter.

Die Lunæ, 14 Decembris, 1702. After bearing council on this appeal. it was adjudged that it should be dismissed, and the decrees, orders, and proceedings of the Court of Chancery therein complained of, should be affirmed. Lords Journ. vol. xvii. p. 190. (1 Eq. Ab. 29. pl. 5. 2 Vern. 434. Vin. iv. 447.)