Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/287

back the cause to be re-heard in Chancery, appellant stated his case to be, that Anne, the grandmother, had no power to charge the freehold or copyhold lands, which the respondent called the trust estate (except copyholds of the yearly value of 40l. while Diana was living) with the said portion; for that the same had been settled in tail upon appellant for valuable consideration; and that appellant being just come of age, did not know of that settlement when respondent drew him into the agreement; but he now shewed the Lords, that previous to the marriage of his father, Thomas Prise, with Mary [248] Carne his mother, articles of agreement were entered into 16th June, 1669, by John Prise, his grandfather, and Anne his wife; whereby in consideration of the marriage and of 5000l. his mother's portion, it was agreed that all the estate at Wisteston, both freehold and copyhold, which John was seised of either in his own or in Anne's right, should be settled to the use of John and Anne for their lives, only with remainder to Thomas their son, and Mary his intended wife, and the heirs male of the body of Thomas by Mary, with divers remainders over; and that Thomas, his father, by deeds of lease and release, dated 25th and 26th August, 1669, also executed previous to his said marriage, conveyed to Thomas, Earl of Ossory, and others, the manor of Pryor's-court, Froome, Dormington, and Clarkson, in the county of Hereford, and other his own estate to the use of himself for life, remainder to said Mary for her jointure, remainder to their first and other sons in tail, with divers remainders over: And that John, the grandfather, died in 1670, and Anne, his widow, whilst sole, and Thomas her son, by lease and release, dated 23d and 24th September, 1670, executed pursuant to those articles, settled Anne's freehold estate to the uses in the articles; but inserted in that conveyance, that 40l. per annum should be paid to Diana, till 3000l. should be paid her: And appellant insisted that Anne had but an estate for life in that freehold estate, and had not power to charge it by her will, and that her copyhold lands were also bound by those articles; and that appellant as the oldest issue male of Thomas and Mary, was well entitled to those settled estates, discharged from that 3000l. and the 40l. a year: And stated, that about the end of the year 1694, a demand was made upon appellant by respondent, who had married Diana, and survived her, for the said 3000l. and that appellant being then but newly come of age, and not having his writings relating to the estate in his hands, (his father being alive) he, in ignorance of his title, and from respondent's persuading him that the lands were legally charged, and the respondent's demand on account of the 3000l. and 40l. annuity, amounting then to 3500l.: and his estate being greatly incumbred, he was seduced into an agreement to lessen the demand, and give 2500l. in full, viz. 1000l. to be paid presently, and 1500l. in four years after, but that this agreement was not reduced to writing; but that when the 1000l. was to be [249] paid, appellant paid only 810l. for which he took respondent's receipt; which appellant insisted was no way binding; and that respondent had thereby made him believe there had been conveyances which charged the estate, but that appellant before he had paid more of the 2500l. had recovered his writings, and thereby discovered that his estate was not liable, and so refused to pay the residue: And insisted that it now appearing respondent had not any original right to charge the estate, appellant ought not, without any consideration, be bound by such pretended agreement, appellant being under the marriage settlement and articles a purchaser for a valuable consideration; and in answer to an objection of respondent's, that all appellant's estate at Westeston, had come from Anne, the grandmother, appellant shewed that it had appeared in proof that his grandfather had purchased from Bridstock Harford, Esq. Pidgeon-house-farm, and other lands for 1000l. in 1633; and that Anne, the grandmother, had by her will given other parts of these lands, charged with 1200l. legacies, to her younger son, from whom appellant had purchased for 1600l. and that his grandfather had copyhold lands of his own there, which appellant enjoyed as his heir; and that appellant had other lands there of his own purchase, and rented others as tenant; and that as the decree was worded, all these might be called the trust estate, and appellant must account for the profits of all, and that the whole was liable to be sold towards paying respondent's 2500l.: Whereas appellant insisted no part ought to be subject, but only so much as the grandmother had power to charge; and that the decree, if not reversed altogether, ought at least to be rectified in that particular; and that appellant barely desired liberty to show his case to the Court of Chancery as it really was. (W. Dobyns.)