Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/415

William Morgan, eldest son of Sir William, on the death of his father was entitled to the settled estates as tenant in tail, subject to the rent-charge of 2000l. to Lady Rachel his mother; and being an infant at his father's death, his trustees and guardians paid the said rent-charge to Lady Rachel during his minority; and after he arrived to the age of 21 years (which was upon the 18th [35] of March 1746) he continued the payment thereof to the time of his death in July 1763, without any complaint having been made on account of the non-payment thereof.

Edward Morgan, the second son of Sir William, died without issue in the life-time of William the eldest son, and the said William afterwards dying without issue, the appellant's father Thomas Morgan, who was the only brother of Sir William Morgan, became entitled by virtue of Sir William Morgan's will to his said real estate, and entered upon and enjoyed the same during his life, and regularly paid the rent-charge to Lady Rachel to the time of his death, which happened in April 1769; but the respondent Elizabeth Jones, the sister of the said William Morgan, took out letters of administration of the personal estate of her late brother William Morgan, and possessed herself of his books, papers, receipts, and vouchers, and by the permission of the said Thomas Morgan continued in the mansion house at Tredegar, for more than a year after the death of her brother William; and during that time she and her agents had the uncontrouled possession of the deeds, papers, and writings belonging to the said William Morgan, and the respondent Elizabeth also possessed his personal estate to a large amount, and in particular a great arrear of rents which was then due from the tenants of the estates comprized in the marriage settlement.

Upon the death of the said Thomas Morgan the father, Thomas Morgan the younger, who was next in remainder under Sir William Morgan's will, entered upon the premises, and held the same during his life, and continued to pay the rent-charge to Lady Rachel regularly; and the said Thomas Morgan the younger having died without issue on the 15th of May 1771, Charles Morgan, the second son of Thomas Morgan the elder, became entitled to the said estates by virtue of the will, and entered upon and enjoyed the same.

William Jones and Elizabeth his wife, who was the only surviving daughter and heir of Sir William Morgan, claimed the settled estates devised by his will; but on the 23d of July 1773 a decree of the Court of Chancery was pronounced in favour of Charles Morgan, which decree was afterwards, on the 2d of May 1774, affirmed on an appeal to the House (Vide 1st edit. vol. vii. p. 130); and the appellant Charles Morgan, from the time he became entitled to the estates, regularly paid the rent-charge to Lady Rachel to the time of her death.

Lady Rachel in the year 1775, for the first time set up a pretence, that a large arrear of the said rent-charge had accrued due in the lifetime of her son William Morgan, and that such arrears then remained unpaid to her; and in Hilary Term 1776, she caused ejectments to be brought upon the demise of the trustees, for recovery of the premises comprized in the term of 99 years; whereupon Charles Morgan in January 1776, filed his bill in Chancery, stating his title as before set forth; and that the said rent-charge had been fully paid to Lady Rachel and her agents by Thomas Morgan, the father and brother, during their respective life-times, [36] and since they became respectively seised of the estates, and also by Charles Morgan since he became seised thereof; and that he had always been ready and willing to pay the same, and had paid what became due for the last half year at Old Michaelmas day then last, to the agent of Lady Rachel, who usually received the said annuity for her use. And further stating, that Lady Rachel pretended there were large arrears of the rent-charge due at the time of the death of William Morgan the younger, who became entitled to the estate on the death of his father in 1731, and that the estate ought to make good the same; and the said William Jones insisted, that such arrears were assigned to and for the benefit of him and Elizabeth his wife, or one of them, by Lady Rachel, and that the arrears were payable to him, and that the assets of the said William Morgan, which were possessed by the said Elizabeth his sister, and to which she became entitled as his administratrix, were not liable to make good any arrears that were due from him; whereas Charles Morgan by his bill charged, that in case there were any such arrears at the death of the said William Morgan (which he insisted was not the