Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/778

dismissed with costs, to be taxed. And it was ordered and decreed, that the Master should likewise take an account of what was due for the sum of £4527 15s. 7½d. reported by a report of the 10th of May 1714, to have been due at Lady-day 1714, for the arrears of the said annuity, with interest for the same from the 17th of June 1714, the time of the confirmation of the said report; and that the Master should likewise take an account of the arrears of the said annuity that grew due from Lady-day 1714, during the life of Dr. Herbert, with interest from the time such arrears ought respectively to have been paid; and that an account should be likewise taken by the Master of what had been received by Dr. Herbert, or by his order, or without his wilful default, might have been received out of the estate since Lady-day 1714, and that the same should be deducted out of what was due to him as aforesaid; and for what should remain due after such deduction, it was ordered and decreed, that the plaintiffs should hold and enjoy the said estate, till they should receive satisfaction for the same, together with what they should pay to the defendant Nightingale, the mortgagee, as aforesaid, with interest for the same, to be computed by the Master, together with their costs, to be taxed. And as between the plaintiffs and the defendants, it was ordered and decreed, that the plaintiff's should perform the trusts of the said deed of the 12th of June 1729, and that the Master should take an account of what was due to the defendant Sir Thomas Cross, for the principal sum of £500 con-[15]-tained in the deed of trust, together with the interest and costs, deducting what had been received by him, which was to be paid him by the plaintiff's in the first place out of the money they should receive under the said deed of trust; and as to the second £500 mentioned in the deed of trust, it did not appear that any appointment was made of it by Dr. Herbert, and therefore the same was not to be paid. And in the next place it was ordered and decreed, that an account should be taken of what was due to the defendant the Countess of Granville, for the sum of £3900 mentioned in the said deed of trust, together with interest and costs; and that the plaintiff's should pay the same out of what they should receive in the next place; and as to the surplus of what should be received by the plaintiffs, the same was to be considered as part of the personal estate of Dr. Herbert, and was to be paid to the defendant Mrs. Herbert, his administratrix, to be applied by her in a course of administration. And it was further ordered, that the Master should appoint a receiver to receive the rents and profits of the estate, and allow him a salary for his care and pains therein; but such receiver was first to give security to be allowed by the Master, to be answerable for what he should so receive, as the Court should direct. And it was further ordered, that the receiver should apply the rents, according to the directions aforesaid. And on the cross bill it was ordered and decreed, that the Master should inquire how much of the said annuity became due between the death of Dr. Herbert, and the death of Lady Bromsall; and as to those arrears, the same were to be accounted for and paid to the administratrix of Lady Bromsall, as part of her personal estate. And it was ordered and decreed, that an account should be taken against Mrs. Herbert, the administratrix of Dr. Herbert, of his personal estate come to her hands, and of his debts and funeral expenses; and that the surplus of the clear personal estate of Dr. Herbert should be divided into moieties, and that one moiety thereof should be paid to the plaintiff Paschall, the administratrix of Lady Bromsall, to be applied by her in a course of administration. And all the parties in both causes were to have their costs out of the estate, to be taxed by the Master.

From this decree the appellant appealed; insisting (J. Willes, N. Fazakerly), that the arrears of the annuity, being a chose en action at the time of Dr. Herbert's assignment, did not thereby pass; but that the same ought to survive to Lady Bromsall, there being no settlement made by Dr. Herbert upon his marriage with her; if, however, this should be held otherwise in favour of creditors, yet there was no colour to extend it any farther. That the estate ought to have been decreed to be sold; for otherwise, considering the prior incumbrances, and the scantiness of the security, the arrears of the annuity would not be satisfied in any reasonable time, if ever; and there was the greater reason for such a decree, because a sale was prayed by both bills, and would be for the manifest advantage of all parties concerned.

[16] On behalf of the respondent Thurston it was contended (J. Verney, E. Green), that by the decree of the 5th of March 1709, possession of the estate was directed to be delivered, and the tenants were to attorn and pay their rents to Lady Bromsall; and