Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/410

Hugh Hogan, and John Stackpoole Hogan, respectively, was granted to the defendant Mary Rawson.

Upon the death of John Stackpoole Hogan, the appellant took upon himself to enter into the possession of the estate in question, as claiming the same as tenant in remainder, under the will of Edmund Hogan.

The respondent, as son and heir and executor of Lawrence his father, in May 1766, filed his bill of revivor against all the now parties, except Mary Hogan the younger, (whom he afterwards made a party thereto by amendment of the 14th June 1770,) and thereby prayed, that the said suit and proceedings might stand revived.

The parties having put in their several answers to the bills of revivor, the respondent replied; and the cause being at issue, several witnesses were examined, who proved most of the facts relied on by the respondent, and particularly the death and seisin of James Davoren, and his dying a papist, and that he died possessed of greater estates, and to a more considerable amount and value, than had been admitted or discovered by John Davoren. Also most of the circumstances of fraud and imposition before stated; and that the personal estate delivered up by John Davoren to Edmund Hogan, at the time of executing the articles of 1748, amounted to many thousand pounds; and the several treaties, compromises, and other circumstances which delayed the suit from time to time, and particularly the several circumstances of influence, undue ascendency, and imposition, before mentioned.

[28] On 6th February 1778, the cause came on to be heard, and on the eleven subsequent days, and on the 7th of May 1778, the court pronounced their decree, That the respondent was entitled to a moiety of the lands and premises whereof James Davoren died seised, in fee-simple or fee-tail, and to an account of the rents and profits thereof received, or which, without wilful default, might have been received, from the death of the said James Davoren; and referred it to the chief remembrancer to audit and state an account of the rents and profits thereof, as against the personal representative of John Davoren, from the death of James Davoren to the year 1748, when Edmund Hogan entered into possession; and as against the personal representatives of Edmund Hogan, from 1748 to the time of Hogan's death; and as against the personal representatives of Hugh Hogan, from the death of Edmund Hogan until the death of Hugh Hogan; and from the death of the said Hugh Hogan, as against the personal representative of John Stackpoole Hogan, the son of said Hugh, until the death of the said John Stackpoole Hogan, when the appellant George Stackpoole entered into possession of said lands and premises. And it was also further decreed, That the several bonds executed to George and Gregory Martin, and the bond executed by Lawrence Davoren to John Davoren, on the 12th day of May 1726, should be delivered up to the respondent to be cancelled; and in case any judgments were obtained thereon, that satisfaction should be acknowledged on the records of each judgment respectively. And decreed, That it should also be referred to the chief remembrancer, or his deputy, to state an account of the principal, interest, and costs, due or to grow due on the several other bonds and securities executed by Lawrence Davoren to the said John Davoren, distinguishing how much remained due thereon at the death of John Davoren, Edmund Hogan, Hugh Hogan, and John Stackpoole Hogan his son, respectively. And decreed, That a writ of partition should issue, with the usual directions, to separate and divide the several lands and premises in the pleadings mentioned, and that the plaintiff should have his share or proportion in severalty.

From this decree the appellant thought fit to appeal, insisting (J. Dunning, Ll. Kenyon), that it was manifest from the transactions in 1726, that an agreement was entered into between Lawrence and John Davoren, for a general settlement of their mutual claims and demands; and, although there was no written instrument to show the precise terms thereof, yet the acts done, viz. the accounts then liquidated between them, the bonds executed for the balances, and for John's interest in Gragans farm; the payment and delivery of the pecuniary and specific legacies in the will and pretended codicil; the securities passed by Lawrence to Martin; John's uninterrupted possession of the estate in question, and Lawrence's acquiescence therein for several years; all together, were convincing proofs of the agreement; and therefore a court of equity ought not to interpose in favour of either party seeking