Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/308

appellant, who had revived the suit, but never proceeded further thereon till after the death of respondent Alice's husband, and then appellant seized respondent Alice's jointure, by a sequestration out of Chancery, which was afterwards discharged for irregularity; and appellant soon after prosecuted another sequestration, and got possession of respondent Alice's jointure, and kept it three years: And that it appeared by the report that respondent's husband, William Northcote, and said Edward Row, received the greatest part of the said 1600l. and yet appellant would not prosecute their administrators, though they were parties to the suit, but would lay the whole burthen on respondent, who, during all those proceedings, was a feme covert, and would also carry on interest upon interest, and levy the whole out of the respondent's jointure, which was all her subsistance; and that the now respondent, Sir Francis Northcote, 31st January, 1689, exhibited his original bill in Chancery, to have the benefit of the decree as to the 4000l. and that respondent Alice, and her said husband, and the other defendants, answered presently; but Sir Francis did not press appellant his mother, to answer till three years after, viz. the 24th May, 1692, and after she had got Sir John Franklin's [291] report, and after the former appeal had been dismissed; and that Sir Francs Northcote brought his cause to hearing, 4th May, 5 William and Mary, before Lord Somers, who decreed amongst other things, that all parties should account before Dr. Edisbury for what they or either of them, or Sir Arthur, had received out of the estate subject to the 4000l. according to the former decree; and that appellant should account and answer for Sir Arthur's receipts, so far as it should appear she had assets; and that Dr. Edisbury, 10th December, 1701, reported, amongst other things, that Sir Arthur had received out of the trust estate, after all deductions, 3534l. 17s. 8½d. to which the appellant Dame Elizabeth filed nine exceptions; and on arguing them got allowance only for two sums, viz. 65l. and 20l. towards sinking the 3534l. 17s. 8½d. and that by the report confirmed the account stood thus:

And that appellant did not deny that these sums were rightly computed, and therefore there was no colour to carry on interest, when the whole 2756l. 1s. 4d. was overpaid to Sir Arthur before his death, which was at Easter, 1688: And that the matter of appellant's 9th exception was, that she was not allowed interest for that 2756l. 1s. 4d. and that the same was not deducted out of the money payable on the trust: And respondent shewed that it was then in the same order, ordered by consent that the 2756l. 1s. 4d. be deducted out of the profits of the trust estate in appellant's hands, received by her husband, Sir Arthur, at the time of the affirmance of the decree: And that these two last orders and report were the only matters appealed against, and the chief complaint was that the 2756l. 1s. 4d. ought not to be sunk and deducted, but carried on with interest as a distinct debt: But respondent insisted that the orders and decree were just in that respect, because both demands arose by the [292] same will, and were originally between the heir and executors of the same testator, and were mutually decreed by the same decree; so that it was mutual justice that both parties should mutually perform it; and that that could not effectually be done, but by discounting one demand out of the other; and the rather, because appellant pretended want of assets, and respondent and her husband had admitted assets; so that if there should be no discount, the demand against appellant, or the greatest part of it, might be lost: And that the decree which discounted one demand out of the other, had been made above ten years, and appellant had acquiesced in it all that time without complaint: And that it appeared by the report that respondent had not only answered to the trust the 2756l. 1s. 4d. in performance of the decree, and also the profits received by her and her husband, but had satisfied for her average, with an overplus of 255l. 8s. and above all, respondent insisted that this appeal ought to be dismissed, without entering into the merits, because it was brought to be relieved against appellant's