Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/771

he constantly, after the death of the Countess, kept regular and exact accounts of his receipts and payments relating to the mortgaged premises. That it was certainly, as lawful for the Earl to lay down the money, and take an assignment of the mortgage as it would have been for any other person to have done, and therefore it was but reasonable, that he should have the like benefit thereof to reimburse what he paid of such assignment, as a stranger might have had and since the Earl had thought fit to leave the money due on this mortgage, as a provision for his six younger children, who had very slender fortunes, and a narrow subsistence; it was hoped, that there would appear no ground or reason to reverse or alter this decree.

But after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that so much of the decree as was complained of, [4] should be reversed; and that the premises in question should be discharged from any demands, which the respondents the Countess of Huntingdon, or her children, or their trustees, or either of them, pretended to have, in respect of the £4500 and interest; and that the term should be assigned as the appellant should direct or appoint; and that the profits of the estate in question, which grew due, and were received by the late Earl, after the death of the late Countess, or by his executors since his death, should be accounted for to the appellant, without being discounted out of the money pretended due on the mortgage; but the Master, to whom the account stood referred, was to make the respondents all such allowances for the appellant's maintenance and education, and for all monies laid out and expended in or about the management and preservation of the said estate, and all other just allowances as in the decree were directed. (Jour. vol. 17. p. 236.)

In the year 1685, the appellant married the Lady Boteler, who was the widow and relict of Sir John Boteler, and, as such, entitled to a jointure of £800 per ann. but, misunderstandings arising between them, they, in the year 1687, agreed upon a separation, which accordingly took place; and the appellant, on that occasion, settled £300 a-year, part of the jointure-estate, upon his lady for her life.

Soon afterwards the Lady Boteler went to the respondent's house in Austin Friars, London, where she continued to board and lodge, until the time of her death; and having saved money out of her separate maintenance, she, in February 1696, deposited £500 in the hands of Ralph Lawton and Christopher Mountague, esq. and took their joint note for the same, payable to the respondent, or bearer.

After the death of Lady Boteler, the respondent set up a nuncupative will, under which she claimed to be entitled to this note, and all other her Ladyship's estate; but she afterwards dropped this claim, and offered the appellant £250 as a composition; which being refused, she then claimed the whole £500 as a gift from Lady Boteler, in recompence for her services.

The appellant thereupon, in June 1701, exhibited his bill in Chancery, as the administrator of his late wife, against [5] the respondent and the said Christopher Mountague, and the executors of the said Ralph Lawton, who was then dead, in order to recover this £500; insisting, that the defendant, Mrs. Lister's name, was made use of in the said note, as a trustee for Lady Boteler; but, upon the coming in of her answer, whereby the whole equity of the bill was denied, the appellant did not think proper to proceed any further in that suit; and therefore, on the 2d of June 1702, his said bill was dismissed with costs.