Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/290

ought to have had an opportunity of contesting the Earl's debt, and praying that the decree might be set aside, or that the Earl's debt might not have preference before their debts: And that their cause came to be heard 29th June, 1696; but the Court declared they would not alter the decree made in the Earl's cause, and dismissed appellant's bill so far as it sought to impeach the Earl's decree, or to let appellant's debts in upon the lands mentioned in the note before the Earl was satisfied: And it was further decreed, though not prayed by that bill, that respondents, the executors, should come to an account for their testator's estate, having all just allowances made them; and that the Master report what appellants debts amounted to, and also to look into a debt claimed by respondent, John Kent; and if a just debt, that then Kent should retain of the testator's estate in his hands sufficient to satisfy the same, and also his costs, before any of the other creditors were paid; and decreed that appellants should appoint a person to get in the testator's estate, and that as got in, the same, as also what should be found remaining in the executor's hands after such deductions and allowances, should be applied towards payment of testator's debts, according to his will: And insisted, that appellants being creditors by judgments so recovered against the executors, the decree could not alter the legal course of payment of debts by executors, and that their judgment debts should be paid, at least out of the personal assets, in preference to any creditors by simple contract, or by bonds not reduced to judgments: And 800l. of the personal estate being got in, appellants petitioned the Court that their judgment debts might be thereout paid in the first place: And that upon hearing that petition, 12th July, 1701, the bond and simple contract creditors insisted that the last decree had provided that all the debts should be paid according to the will, namely equally; and that the said decree could not be altered or controuled by any order to be made on the petition; and [255] that the Court was of that opinion, and gave appellants no relief: And that appellants thereupon applied to re-hear the cause, to the intent only to have the decree explained as to the course and priority of payment; and that the cause was re-heard 4th May, 1702, but the Court would not relieve appellants: And appellants insisted that, although the testator had by his will directed, which appellants contended he had not, that his personal estate should be applied to pay off all his creditors rateably, without respect to the nature of their debts, such direction would be void, as contrary to the rules of law and equity; and that the appellants wore aggrieved by the decree, and that it ought to be reversed; but that appellants acquiesced under the Earl of Kildare's decree, but appealed from the decree, and all subsequent orders made in their cause. (H. Poley.)

The respondent, John Kent, made this case: That Richard Kent, being greatly indebted, made his will 10th March, 1687, and Sir Stephen Fox, Bridget Kent, Nicholas Fenn, and respondent, executors; and devised to them his whole estate for two hundred years, to pay 500l. per annum to Bridget for her life for her jointure, remainder in tail-male to John Kent, his nephew, with remainders over; and devised to his executors all his real and personal estate for payment of his debts, funeral expences, and legacies, and declared that the term of two hundred years was upon trust; that if his personal estate should not be sufficient to pay his debts, funeral and other charges, that then his executors should raise the same with all their charges, by sale or mortgage of his real estate, and died in November, 1690; and that respondent, said Bridget Kent, and Nicholas Fenn, proved the will, and possessed themselves of as much of his personal estate as they could, and found it in great part desperate, and entered upon the real estate, which was all incumbered with great debts, and intended to perform the said testator's will; and that John, Earl of Kildare, and his trustees, in Trinity term, 1691, exhibited their bill, to compel the executors to pay the 8000l. and interest, as stated by appellants; and that in the same term Johnson, and others, exhibited their bill against respondent and others, for an account of testator's estates, and to have them sold for payment of their debts, according to the will: And that both causes were [256] heard in Chancery 28th June, 1692, when it was decreed as stated by appellants: And that respondent was bound for and with the said testator in several bonds to different persons in different sums, amounting to 6300l. and that testator was moreover indebted to respondent by bond 4000l. principal money, besides interest,