Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/518

thereto by the Duke, or by the Lord Godolphin on his behalf. That as the respondents had, in every respect, performed the work according to their contract, they ought in justice to be paid; but having no means to recover the same from the Crown, they were wholly without remedy if his Grace was not liable, and must therefore lose the remainder of their debt.

After hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and that the decree therein complained of, should be affirmed. (Jour. vol. 21. p. 529.)

Abraham Yarner, esq. being seised in fee of an estate, in the county of Wicklow, in Ireland, of about £1200 per ann. and having issue an only son, named Abraham, and three daughters, Jane, the mother of the appellant, the respondent Mary, and Catherine, the wife of Richard Stone, esq. made his will, dated the 15th of April 1693, and thereby devised all his real estate to bis said son Abraham Yarner, and the heirs male of his body; and for want of such issue, to his three daughters, and the heirs of their respective bodies; with several remainders over.

After the testator's death, Abraham, the son, entered and continued in possession till 1703, when he died without issue; but before his death, viz. in the year 1700, Jane, the testators eldest daughter, who had married Pierce Bryan, died, leaving the appellant her eldest son and heir; so that upon the death of Abraham Yarner the son, the respondent Mary Woolley, and her sister Catherine Stone, became entitled to the devised estate for their lives, as joint tenants, with several inheritances, viz. one third to [185] the heirs of the body of the respondent Mary; another third to the heirs of the body of Catherine Stone; and the reversion of the remaining third became vested in the appellant, as the eldest son of his said late mother Jane.

But Pierce Bryan, the appellant's father and guardian, thought proper to enter upon one third part of the estate, as being the immediate property of his son.

In 1707, Stone and his wife brought an ejectment, to recover a moiety of the third so taken possession of, for the appellant; whereupon the father entered into an agreement with them, and obtained a release of their claim, in consideration of £550. He also proposed to give the respondent Benjamin the like sum, for a release of his wife's claim, and in consequence of this proposal, some letters passed between them; but nothing final was concluded upon, nor was the respondent Mary in any manner acquainted with this treaty.

However, upon the strength of these letters, and under an apprehension, that they amounted to such an agreement as a Court of Equity would carry into execution; the appellant, soon after he came of age, viz. in October 1719, filed his bill in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, against Woolley and his wife, for a specific performance of this supposed agreement.

The defendant Benjamin, by his answer, admitted that letters had passed between him and the plaintiff's father, which might contain some overtures for a sale of his wife's share of the estate, but insisted, that no agreement was ever completed for that purpose; and the defendant Mary, by her answer, denied any knowledge of this transaction, or that she ever intended to part with her share, or had ever consented that any thing should be done to deprive her of it.

On the 12th of May 1721, the cause was heard, when the Court was pleased to dismiss the bill, with costs.

But from this decree, the plaintiff thought proper to appeal; insisting (P. Yorke, C. Talbot), that the agreement was well proved by letters under the respon-