Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/318

bearing date the 22d day of May, 1691. We say, received by us this 22d day of May, 1691. James Cockayne, Elizabeth Cockayne:" But that appellant not having then paid Cockayne 500l. part of the 1830l. he, to shew there was 1330l. and no more then due to him, gave a receipt in these words, viz.

Which sheriff had made a false return upon an execution issued out against the goods of James Cockayne, at the suit of Sir Simon Harcourt, and for which the appellant paid Sir Simon Harcourt 243l. 10s. besides costs. And that a Mrs. King was soon after agreed on by all parties to manage the premisses, and continued in such management till September, 1693; but that through ill management, and Cockayne and wife living upon the premisses, appellant could make little or no profit thereof; and that appellant, in 1693, brought his bill in Chancery to have bis money paid, or that Cockayne and wife might be foreclosed of their equity of redemption, and that appellant might redeem Crispe's mortgage, on payment of the further sum of 700l. and interest to him; and that, in 1694, respondent and her trustees brought their bill, that appellant might discover what was due to him upon the articles, and that upon payment thereof respondent might redeem: And that upon hearing the causes before Mr. Justice Powell, 6th July, 1695, it was decreed that a Master should take an account of what was due for principal, interest, and costs, to Crispe, and also of what was due to appellant according to the articles, discounting what appellant had received, and also to tax him his costs; and the Master was to examine whether the 700l. agreed to be paid to Crispe was part of the 1830l. secured by the articles: And appellant was to pay what should be due to Crispe, who was thereupon to assign to the two senior six clerks, subject to what should be due to appellant, but that if appellant should fail to pay Crispe, then appellant was to deliver possession to Crispe, who was to hold the premisses until paid; and respondent was to pay what should be due to appellant, and what appellant should pay Crispe, if appellant thought [312] fit to redeem him; and if appellant would not redeem Crispe, then after Crispe was satisfied he was to assign to appellant; and if respondent, or any for her, would pay off Crispe, and appellant, then they were to assign their securities as respondent should appoint: And that the Master, in 1697, ascertained Crispe's debt at 1012l. which appellant accordingly paid: And that the Master, 29th November, 1697, made his report, to which respondent excepted, and petitioned to re-hear the causes as to the manner of accounting: And that, 11th July, 1698, the causes were re-heard, and the matter of the report and exceptions heard at the same time; and the Court declared that appellant being in the common case of a mortgagee, ought to have the common directions for accounting as a mortgagee; and therefore (in part) ordered that appellant should, for such time as he had been in possession, account for what he had, or without his wilful default might have received; and for such time as accounts were kept appellant was to be examined upon interrogatories touching the same, but for such times as no account were kept, appellant was to be answerable according to the yearly value; and after the time, Mrs. King, the common manager, and one Mr. Lanston (who was manager for appellant) left the possession, the account was to be taken according to the yearly value: And that upon debate of the matter of the report and exceptions, an issue at law was directed to try whether the 700l. due to Crispe, or any, and what part thereof was part of the 1830l. Whereas appellant insisted there was not sufficient proof in the cause to ground any such directions, and that the contrary plainly appeared both by the articles and a receipt for the 1830l. under the hands of Cockayne and his wife, proved in the cause, and the said receipt given by appellant for the 500l. and that at a trial had in London, respondent's counsel insisted that the 1830l. could not be made out as paid by appellant, without reckoning the 700l. as part thereof; and that thereupon appellant, though a hardship after an account stated, gave evidence of the payment of several sums of money for Cockayne's debts, and other moneys lent and paid to him, which made up the 1830l. without the 700l. but that respondent then produced an account under appellant's hand made up in February, 1691, nine months after the articles, and insisted that what sums of [313] money the appellant had proved paid for the debts of Cockayne were al-