Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/687

tion for sale of the annuity moved from, and was made by Callaghan the appellant's attorney, and strongly seconded by the appellant himself, unsought for, and unsolicited either by Mr. Brand or Mr. Grant, who resided in Cornwal, and was neither acquainted with the appellant or his circumstances; and the money paid by him was a full and adequate consideration, according to the then current price of annuities in London, for the life of the seller. That the appellant was himself guilty of very great imposition and misrepresentation, not only as to the yearly value of the estate, but in covenanting that he was seised for life of the premises subjected to this annuity, without any charge thereon, except a rent-charge of £200 to his lady, and some small annual outgoings; when by his last answer he had himself discovered and admitted, that at the time of granting this annuity, and prior thereto, there were several other annuities, rent-charges, and incumbrances of his own making, amounting to above £2000 a year on the estate, although the same did not exceed the clear yearly value of £600. The appellant had therefore very little reason to insinuate any unfairness on the part of Mr. Grant, or Mr. Brand, nor could his behaviour entitle him to the reversal or variation of a decree obtained with so much difficulty, by reason of his repeated and affected delays. That by the proviso in the deed, the appellant was at liberty, on re-payment of the purchase-money to Mr. Grant, together with the arrears of the annuity, at any time after the expiration of four years, to have determined the same, and might yet do it at any future time on those terms. This was a beneficial clause to him, and manifested not only his own caution, but the purchaser's candour in settling the agreement; but instead of complying with this proviso, the appellant now contends, that the deed of annuity ought to be considered only as a security for the money advanced by Mr. Grant, with interest at four per cent. which is contrary to the letter of the deed, as well as the intention of the parties. That the many incumbrances on the appellant's Northamptonshire estate, to upwards of three times its value, prior to this annuity, had rendered it totally insufficient to pay or secure the annuity, [434] or any part of it; the respondent's whole dependence therefore for such payment or security, was the continuance of the appellant's life, and the benefit resulting from the decree, which, after great delay and expence, they had obtained against him.

After hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed, and the decrees therein complained of, affirmed: and it was further ordered, that the appellant should pay to the respondent the sum of £80 for his costs in respect of the said appeal.^[1] (Jour. vol. 29. p. 15.)

Dudley Loftus, esq. Doctor of Laws, in the year 1671, being seised in fee of several houses on the Blind Key, and in Smock Alley and Scarlet Lane, in the city of Dublin, mortgaged the same to the Governors of the Blue-Coat Hospital, near Dublin, for £800 and interest at £10 per cent. per ann. And a great arrear of