Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/315

and gone before the respondents clerk in Court was served with the order of the 3d of November, which was not to be made use of till the affidavit was filed, and the clerk in Court had personal notice thereof: And because the accounts and vouchers, the want of which appellant complained of, did not appear by any proof in the cause, to have come to respondents hands; and that respondents by their answer to a cross bill exhibited by appellant, had sworn that they had not ever had any such accounts or vouchers, and believed they were delivered to the appellant at the execution of the agreement: And respondents contended, that though there was no provision by the agreement for payment of the 1500l. bond-debt, yet it particularly expressed that that debt remained entirely unsatisfied, and that respondents were proper to sue in equity for a satisfaction of that debt out of assets, and that appellant had not entitled himself to retain, nor shewed that any debt was due to him from the testator, and by the decree he was to have all just allowances: And respondents shewed, that after the decree inrolled, appellant had brought his bill of review, and therein assigned the very same errors assigned in his appeal; and that upon arguing a demurrer put in thereto by the respondents, these errors were all over-ruled, and the bill dismissed. (Thomas Vernon.)

Die Martis, 18 Januarii, 1703. After hearing council on this appeal, it was adjudged by the Lords that the same should be dismissed, and the decree and order complained of affirmed.—Lords Journ. vol. xvii. p. 375.

The appellant shewed, that this appeal was against a decree of dismission of a bill in Chancery, brought by Mr. West, for recovery of 300l. and interest, part of the fortune of his wife Eleanor, one of the daughters and coheirs of Sir John Knatchbull; and that the 500l. in question, was part of 1400l. due from Sir John Knatchbull to his mother-in-law, Lady Monins, upon several notes under his hand, payable on demand with interest: And that said Sir John Knatchbull, having no son, and only three daughters, left all his estate to respondent his brother, charged with his debts and legacies, and with portions of 3300l. a-piece for his three daughters: And that after Sir John's death, Mr. West treated for marriage with Eleanor, one of the daughters, and was assured, that Lady Monins her grandmother, would give her 500l. more, part of the said 1400l. in addition to the 3300l. left her by her father, and that the match was concluded upon those terms; and Mr. West before marriage made a settlement for her, and provision for her issue by him suitable to that fortune, and that Eleanor assigned her portion of 3300l. and Lady Monins the 500l. in question to trustees, for the benefit of Mr. West; and that respondent afterwards paid Mr. West the 3300l. but not the 500l. and that Mr. West, together with Lady Monins and the trustees, brought their bill against respondent, to compel him to pay the 500l. as a debt due to Lady Monins, and by her assigned to Mr. West; and that respondent by his answer admitted assets to pay the 500l. but alleged that the Lady Monins had given Sir John the 1400l. towards increase of his said daughters portions, and that Sir John intended to include and sink that money in the portions of 3300l. a-piece which he gave them: And that the cause was heard the 7th [306] day of May last before the Lord Keeper, who dismissed appellant's bill: And that respondent laid great stress upon a paper written by Sir John Knatchbull himself, touching the 1400l. and lady Monin's intention of giving it to increase his daughters portions, and relied also upon some general discourse Sir John had with Mr. Hoskins, one of his executors; who in his deposition had made inferences, and formed arguments to support his own opinion and belief, although he, Hoskins, was all along privy to Mr. West's marriage treaty, and a party to his settlement, where it was recited that Sir John's estate stood