Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/658

intermarried with the respondent Sarah Butler; and in Trinity term 1762, levied fines, and suffered recoveries of the estates in the counties of Kilkenny and Tipperary; and died on the 6th of June 1763, intestate, leaving the respondent Sarah his widow, ensient of the respondent Sarah Elizabeth; and the respondent Sarah soon afterwards obtained administration to Richard, and also to Francis his father.

By an inquisition taken in the year 1763, Pierse was found to have been an idiot from his nativity.

The appellant and Flood continued in the possession of the estates of Francis, of which Richard became seised as aforesaid, under colour of the said mortgage and elegit; and having refused the respondent Sarah, as guardian to Sarah Elizabeth her daughter, the possession of the said estates, or to permit her to receive any part of the rents and profits thereof, the respondent Sarah Elizabeth, and the respondent Sarah her mother, as her guardian, and as administratrix of Richard her late husband, on the 9th of June 1764, filed their bill in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, against Flood and the appellant, for an account on the foot of the mortgage, and for a re-conveyance thereof; and by their said bill stated, that Francis was seised in fee, and died in 1758, leaving Richard his heir at law; that Richard levied fines, and suffered recoveries, and died in 1763 tenant in fee-simple, intestate, leaving the respondent Sarah his widow, ensient of the respondent Sarah Elizabeth; and that the respondent Sarah had obtained administration to Richard.

The appellant answered this bill on the 24th of July 1764; and thereby admitted the seisin in fee of the Kilkenny estate, in Francis, and the mortgage to Flood; that an account was taken on the 16th of November 1752, on the foot of the mortgage; and that £137 2s. 2d. only then remained due; he admitted the death of Francis in 1758; and that Richard became seised of the equity of redemption in fee-simple of the mortgaged premises, and that he died so seised in June 1763; and that the respondent Sarah obtained administration to him: but said he had not received any rents for Flood or Francis, on account of the mortgage, since 1752; and that since, and before, he received the third of the rents of Callan for the use of his mother Elinor, to 1756, and from 1756 he received that third for his own use as part of his dividend, under the gavel-kind clause. And the said John Flood, on the 21st of November 1764, also answered the said bill nearly in the same words as the appellant; but insisted that there was then due to him on the foot of the mortgage £209 2s. 6d. and £60 costs.

[391] The appellant and Flood having been also in possession under the elegit, as executors of Thomas Butler, and they having alledged that there was still a considerable sum due on the foot thereof, the respondents, on the 22d of June 1764, filed another bill against the appellant and Flood; charging that they, as executors of Thomas Butler, in Michaelmas term 1754, obtained a judgment against Francis for £642 debt, and £7 7s. 6d. costs; and that Francis died seised in fee of estates in Callan, leaving Richard, who became seised in fee of those estates; and that the executors revived the judgment against Richard, the heir and ter-tenants of Francis, and sued out an elegit, and were afterwards, on the 21st of October 1757, put into possession of a moiety of two-thirds of the said lands in the county of Kilkenny; and prayed to be restored to the possession, and to have satisfaction acknowledged on the judgment.

The appellant put in his answer to this bill on the 29th of June 1764, and therein admitted the judgment obtained by him and Flood, as executors of Thomas; and insisted that there was £309 5s. 7d. due for interest thereon, from the time of obtaining the judgment, until the time when possession was given under the elegit, together with £42 9d. for costs, in obtaining possession; whereas the judgment, having been obtained upon an action brought for the arrear of rent, interest could not, in any event, incur on the debt from the time of obtaining the judgment. The appellant also admitted he revived the judgment against the heir and ter-tenants of Francis, and in virtue of an elegit got the actual possession of a moiety of two-third parts of the lands; but insisted that the rents and profits thereof which he had received, did not exceed the principal interest and costs which incurred on the elegit; and refused to account with the respondents, alledging, that it had been reported that the respondent, Sarah Elizabeth, had been dead three months before, and that the respondent Sarah must prove her marriage and the legitimacy of the