Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/336

ness: And that Sir Simon accordingly, by lease and release, 4th and 5th June, 1678, (the marriage being had on the sixth) conveyed unto John Traverse and George Aylmer, and their heirs, part of his real estate whereof 400l. per ann. was to the use of Simon, junior, for life, remainder to Mary for life, and after their death to the heirs male of Simon, on the body of Mary, with remainder to the heirs of the said Simon Eaton, junior; and for default thereof, to Mary and her right heirs for ever, if Simon should die before her without issue; and as to the remaining 400l. per ann. to the use of Simon junior, and the heirs of his body; remainder to Sir Simon and his right heirs for ever: And that Sir Simon, by other deeds of the same date, settled all the rest of his then real Estate to [348] the use of himself for life; remainder in tail general to Simon the younger; remainder in fee to himself; and therein inserted a general power of revocation, whereas, as appellant's insisted he ought not by the articles to have any such power: And appellants stated further, that Simon and Mary had issue appellant Martha, their only child and heir, and that Simon died in the year 1684, and Mary in 1686 (with the consent of her father Sir Richard Aldworth) intermarried with George Mathew senior, Esq., father of the appellant George Mathew, junior, and that they all lived in great affection for some years after: And that Sir Simon, being about eighty years old, weak and infirm, was almost solely governed by dame Susanna his wife, who had issue (by a former husband) the respondent Phillips and other children; and though his son Simon, and Mary his wife, were dutiful, and no way disobeyed him, yet Susanna and her children contrived to get as much of his estate as they could, and to employ respondent Phillips to receive his rents and debts, and prevailed with him to differ with Mary touching the guardianship of the appellant Martha, whom she bred a protestant; and not long before his death (which happened in 1697) drew him in to execute some deed or deeds, for some nominal consideration, and to make some will, and Susanna and Phillips executors, by which they pretended that he disposed of all his mortgages, debts, and personal estate to respondent Phillips and other the children and grand-children of dame Susanna; and settled on the respondent Phillips the said remainder in fee of the said 400l. per ann. which he limited to himself in the dead of settlement; but which by the said articles ought to have been limited to his son Simon and his heirs, and that appellant Martha was his heir, and under colour of the said general power of revocation contained in the other deed entirely to revoke the same, and give all the rest of his real estate to respondent Phillips; and that all the mortgages, debts, and personal estate amounting to great value, were contrary to the articles, enjoyed by respondents Phillips, who possessed all the deeds and evidences relating to Sir Simon's estate: And that appellants, being then infants, by their next friend exhibited their bill in Chancery in Ireland against respondents dame Susanna, since deceased, and others, for a specific performance of the articles, whereunto a plea and answer was put in; and [349] respondent Phillips insisted he knew nothing of the articles or deeds till after Sir Simon's death, but believed there were some such, and referred to them when proved; and believed that Simon, junior, and his wife, were dutiful, and left issue appellant Martha, and that she and her mother are protestants; and concluded that he was a purchaser for valuable considerations, without notice of the articles: And that the plea being argued, was allowed good (if proved) wherefore appellant replied, that respondent Phillips was not a purchaser for valuable considerations, and that he had notice of the articles; and proved the articles and payment of the portion; and that the power of revocation was inserted in the second deed, expressly against the good liking of Sir Richard Aldworth, and that Sir Simon then declared that he inserted it only to have a hanck on his son, and keep him within his duty, and not any way to avoid his articles, and proved express notice of the articles to dame Susanna, and also notice to respondent Phillips by several witnesses; and that Simon, junior, and his wife, were very dutiful, and lived with Sir Simon, who was very fond of them; and also of George Mathew, senior; and that there was always a good correspondence between appellants and Sir Simon; And that on the hearing, 14th November, 1701, appellants offered to read a bond for performance of the covenants in the articles, which was opposed by respondents council, and refused by the court to be read, because not put in issue in the pleadings, or proved; yet that this was made the principal ground of the Lord Chancellors judgment to