Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/362

might account for the profits; and that the decree stated by appellants was made on the hearing, which respondents insisted ought to be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with exemplary costs: And respondent shewed, that the gentlemen who signed the present appeal were not appellant's council in Chancery, and that those who were appellant's council there refused to sign it. (Edward Northey. Henry Box.)

Die Veneris, 18 May 1711. After hearing council on this appeal, it was adjudged by the Lords that the same should be dismissed, and the decree complained of affirmed; and that appellants pay respondents the sum of 50l. for their costs in this house. Lords Journ. vol. xix. p. 304.

The appellants made this case: That George, late Duke of Buckingham, in 1671, 1674, 1675, 1676, conveyed all his estate to the Bishop of Rochester, Sir Robert Clayton, and Major Wildman, in trust, to pay his debts; and to gain further credit with his tradesmen, and servants, informed them he had so settled his estate, that his then and future debts would be thereout paid; and by his letters, 19th November, 1675, and 17th March, 1676, to Major Wildman, directed him to pay out of the said trust what was then or should be afterwards due to his tradesmen and servants; and, to prevent any pretence not to pay them, by his deed-poll, 24th of August, 1676, indemnified his said trustees for any payment they should make, contrary to former trusts. And, in Hilary term, 1682, appellants Baker and Philips exhibited their bills in Chancery against the Duke and his trustees, to be paid their debts; and the Duke was in contempt to a sequestration, for want of an answer. And that Major Wildman, in his answer, May 25th, 1683, acknowledged he received the Duke's letters for payment of his tradesmen and servants, and had assured them they [406] should be paid out of the trust-money. And that Cherry and Browne, pretending the Duke, by deeds of the 21st December, 1680, and the 16th of May, 1681, appointed his trustees, after several other trusts, to stand seized to the use of Cherry and Browne, for payment of 10,000l. and other sums they should lend, with interest, did in Trinity term, 1682, exhibit their bills in Chancery against the said Duke and his trustees, for payment of their debts. And that the cause was heard 6th March, 1682, and re-heard 23d May, 1683, and referred to Sir John Hoskins, a master, to take an account of what was due to them: And that the said trustees should sell such part of the trust-estate as the Court should direct for payment thereof; and that the master, 13th July, 1683, reported due to Browne, for principal and interest, 43,432l. 18s. 3d. and to Cherry 10,272l. 3s. 5d. And, November 13th, 1684, it was ordered in that cause that interest should be made principal, and to carry interest. And February 5th, 1684, in the same cause the Court declared Cherry and Browne should have interest for their interest, when it was a stated sum. And July 25th, 1695, in the same cause, it was ordered that Cherry and Browne's debt should be first paid; and 14th November, 1706, it was ordered that the master should state the priority of the creditors debts, and how much of such creditors debt had been made up by interest, and interest upon interest, and costs; and the several decrees and proceedings by such creditors: And 26th October, 1708, the master was further ordered to state the nature of the