Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/355

the grandfather Gamaliel's articles, and their father's will, that they might have the estate discharged of their father's debts, their mother's jointure, and have the benefit of respondent's improvements; which was so unconscionable, that after four days hearing the cause, the Lord Chancellor, on the 8th May, 1705, decreed respondents the perpetual injunction of that Court to stay appellants proceedings against them at law for Bilbo, and other lands [388] mentioned in the declaration; which decree respondents insisted was just, and ought to be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs. (J. Jekyll. Sim. Harcourt.)

Die Veneris, 31 Januarii, 1706. After hearing council upon this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged that the same should be dismissed, and the order and decree complained of affirmed. Lords Journ. vol. xviii. p. 222. (Vin. xiv. 431.)

This case was misplaced by accident.

The appellant stated: That respondent's bill against him in the Court of Exchequer, was (amongst other things) to be restored to the possession of certain houshold goods, sold and paid for; and to have appellant deliver up several bonds wherein the respondent was bound to him and his relations; and to be relieved against a purchase made by appellant from respondent, of his manors of Gellybyon and Walterstone, in the County of Glamorgan: And that appellant, in his answer, insisted that he was an absolute purchaser of those manors, and had paid the greatest part of his purchase-money; and that respondent had absolutely sold him the houshold goods by bill of sale, and that he had paid for the same; and, to the rest of respondent's demands, submitted to an account: And that the cause was heard in the Exchequer, 30th June, 1703, when an account was decreed of what appellant, William Watkins his father, or Job Watkins his brother, really paid, either for principal money, interests, or costs, unto or for respondent, and appellant to be allowed interest for the same; and respondent to account for the profits of the manors from such time as the appellant had so purchased; and appellant to pay the remainder of his consideration money, with interest from the time of his purchase; and appellant to account to the respondent for all the household goods: And that the Deputy-remembrancer, 11th June, 1706, made a report ex parte, that there was a balance due from the appellant to the respondent 405l. 14s. and that this report was confirmed ex parte, 19th June, 1706, and appellant decreed to pay the respondent said 405l. 14s. and to do several other acts; which decree was immediately signed and enrolled; and that appellant thus surprised, brought his bill of review; but the court would not open the decree, or relieve appellant, which he insisted the Lords ought in justice to do; because, though the decree ordered appellant interest for what he had paid for respondent's [390] debts; and it appeared he had paid 307l. 19s. 8d. yet he was allowed no interest at all for the same: And although respondent was decreed to account with appellant for the profits of the manors, and appellant to account for what remained of his purchase money, and interest, yet appellant was charged with the whole purchase-money and interest, although respondent by his bill admitted part of it to be paid, and was not allowed one penny towards the profits: And that appellant moreover stood charged with the value of the household goods, although it appeared by receipts under respondent's hand, that appellant paid for the same: And further, because the final decree had fixed appellant to pay 405l. 14s. without having the allowances, which the former decree directed; and had the first decree been pursued, and the account fairly taken, it would appear by receipts under respondent's own hand, that the respondent was in appellant's debt. (Sam. Dodd.)

The respondent on his part stated, that in Easter Term, 12 William III. he brought his bill in the Exchequer against appellant, setting forth that he had let several tenements to appellant at 28l. 10s. per ann. and had granted appellant