Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/343

any accounts already stated between Henry Hampson, and respondents, which decree appellant insisted was erronious, and incorrect, because no direction was given the master to enquire into the reality of respondents debts, though denied by the answer of Henry Hampson; whereas, in all events, appellant being a purchaser for full value, bona fide paid, ought to pay no more upon these judgments, than upon a fair inquiry and proof should appear justly due thereon: And further, because the decree bound appellant by accounts stated between respondent and Hampson, without notice to appellant; and because appellant bad petitioned the Lord Keeper for a re-hearing on these grounds, but respondents procured the decree to be signed within a few hours after the order had passed the register, and afterwards to be inrolled, notwithstanding appellant had the very same day the order passed the register, and before any actual inrollment of the said decree, entered a caveat against signing and inrolling it: And the Lord Keeper had declared he could not grant a re-hearing, by reason of the inrollment; nor could be open or set aside the inrollment. (Mi. Newnam. Jos. Ayloffe.)

The respondents on their part stated, that Henry Hampson had contracted many debts, and his goods were taken in execution at the suit of William Cherry, Esq. and lie about the latter end of the year 1696, desired respondent Fielding's assistance, which he promised, and thereupon paid the execution money, and redeemed his goods, and between that time and the 5th of June, 1697, paid several of Hampson's creditors, and lent Hampson divers sums, and for his security took two several bonds of 500l. each, and that, 3th June, 1697, Fielding and Hampson came to an account, when there was due to Fielding 1332l. 5s. 6d. and Hampson owing other debts, intreated Fielding to undertake the payment thereof, which he did, and thereupon Hampson gave Fielding a bond of 3000l. conditioned to pay 1500l. and confessed a judgment in 3000l. and the two former bonds were then delivered up and cancelled; and that Fielding, between 5th and 30th June, 1637, paid for and lent Hampson several sums; and on the said 30th of June, Fielding and Hampson came to a second stated accompt; and that there then remained due to Fielding 1500l. and that at the passing each accompt [363] all vouchers were delivered up, as appeared under Hampson's hand and seal: And that Hampson being likewise indebted to respondent Wilkinson 62l. for goods sold and money lent, and secured by two bonds, Wilkinson put the bonds in suit, and recovered judgment in Michaelmas term, 1697: And that Hampson was likewise indebted to respondent Fairer in 55l. and 67l. 10s. for goods sold and money lent, both which sums Hampson secured by two judgments in Trinity and Michaelmas terms, 1697; and that respondents discovering that Hampson had made several mortgages of his estate in Devon, Cornwall, and Taplowe in Bucks, to Green, Smith, and Loddington, and that they had assigned their securities to appellant, acquainted appellant with the nature of their respective debts, and how secured, in hopes appellant would have accepted from then the money he had paid Green, Smith, and Loddington, with interest, and assign his securities; but appellant, long after he had such notice, viz. 4th December, 1700, procured to himself a release of the equity of redemption of the said premises from the said Hampson, and that therefore respondents exhibited their bill in Chancery against appellant and others for discovery of what he paid Green, Smith, and Loddington, upon those securities, and whether he had nor notice of their judgments, and that respondent, might be admitted to redeem, or appellant be decreed to pay them their judgment debts: And that appellant pleaded as shewed by him; and by answer positively denied, that at the time of executing the said release of the 4th December, 1700, or at any time before he had notice of the respondents judgments, and that the cause was heard, 9th December, 1702, and an issue directed as to the question of notice, which was tryed before Lord Chief Justice Trevor, in Hillary Term, 1702; and upon full evidence, a verdict found for the respondents; and that on hearing the cause on the equity reserved, such decree as shewed by appellant was made; and that appellant complained that the decree was irregularly inrolled, but the late Lord Keeper, after a strict examination of the registers and clerks in court as to the practice, was of opinion that the decree had been regularly signed and inrolled: and that respondents then proceeded before the master upon the accompt, and the master on hearing both sides, made a first and second report, to which appellant took exceptions, which were argued and re-argued,