Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/477

shall advise or devise. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal the 4th day of July 1677.

This writing was signed by Fletcher, and attested by three witnesses, of whom the respondent Pleydell was one.

In January 1677, the appellants married, and the appellant David accepted the above writing as an addition to his wife's portion; and accordingly settled a suitable jointure for her.

No conveyance was ever executed by Fletcher, pursuant to this agreement; but he being indebted to the respondent Pleydell in £1600 and upwards, upon several judgments, Pleydell in July 1694 sued out an execution under these judgments, and by virtue thereof seized several of Fletcher's leasehold houses in Dublin, which being appraised at £400 were sold by the sheriff for that sum to the other respondent Culpepper, in trust for Pleydell; and he accordingly entered and continued in the quiet possession of these houses, during the lives of Fletcher and his wife.

In March 1695, John Fletcher died without issue, having made his will, and thereby devised all his estate, both real and personal, to Elizabeth his wife; who accordingly enjoyed the same till September 1696, when she also died without issue, and intestate; [125] whereupon one Dr. Woodroffe obtained letters of administration of her effects, and also administration de bonis non, of John the husband; and in this capacity, Dr. Woodroffe, on the 6th of April 1697, executed a conveyance of all the testator's estate in or near the city of Dublin to the appellants, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns for ever.

But the effect of this conveyance being impeded by the possession of Mr. Pleydell, under the above purchase, the appellants, in Easter term 1697, exhibited their bill in the Court of Chancery in England, where Pleydell resided, against him, and the other respondent Culpepper, in order to set aside the aforesaid judgment and execution for fraud, and without consideration, and to compel an assignment of the said leasehold premises, and an account of the rents and profits, from the time of Mrs. Fletcher's death.

On the 6th of July 1702, the cause was heard before the Lord Keeper Wright; when his lordship declared, that he saw no reason in equity to give the plaintiffs any relief, and therefore ordered the bill to stand dismissed.

From this order of dismission the plaintiffs appealed (S. Harcourt, W. Dobyns); and on their behalf it was said to be proved in the cause, that Fletcher, at the time of giving the judgment in 1691, had several suits depending against him in Ireland; and there being a particular intimacy and correspondence between him and the respondent Pleydell, the judgment was confessed voluntarily to Pleydell, in order to cover and protect the estate from Fletcher's other creditors. But supposing the judgment to have been fairly obtained, yet it was in proof, that at the time of the pretended sale, the houses were worth £300 more than what they were appraised and sold for; that in case any thing was really due from Fletcher at the time of the judgment, yet it was afterwards brought into subsequent accounts between him and the respondent Pleydell, and made part of a certain sum of £1100 for which Fletcher mortgaged to Pleydell a large estate in Herefordshire, and which he (Pleydell) was then in the possession of; and that, at the time of executing such mortgage, the bill penal for £1665 upon which the said judgment was obtained, was delivered up and cancelled. So that if the order of dismission should stand, the respondent Pleydell, who was no relation to Fletcher, or any of his family, would go away with the estate in Ireland for nothing, and also have whatever money was due to him amply secured upon the other estate in Herefordshire; while the appellants would be totally deprived of the provision intended for them by Fletcher, although the respondent Pleydell was himself a witness to the writing of the 4th of July 1677, and therefore could not pretend ignorance of the appellant's right.

On the other side it was argued (W. Cowper), that from the writing itself it was manifest. that Fletcher meant to convoy freehold, and not leasehold houses and lands, for the heirs of the body of Elizabeth were thereby intended to take; that Fletcher was then seised of divers freehold houses and lands in and about Dublin, part whereof was sold to the Lord Primate of Ireland above twenty years ago, and the residue remained unsold; but that the premises in question, [126] being all leaseholds, would not bear any such limitation. That if Fletcher did intend the