Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/794

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
II BROWN.
WELBY v. RUTLAND (DUKE OF) [1773]

Case 2.—William Welby,—Appellant; John, Duke of Rutland,—Respondent [1st February 1773].

[Where a bill is brought to establish a legal title, and for a perpetual injunction, it is the established practice of Courts of Equity to dismiss the bill, notwithstanding the defendant has answered and insisted on matter of title.]

The appellant, on the 18th of August 1768, exhibited a bill in the Court of Chancery against the respondent, setting forth, that the manor of Denton, in the county of Lincoln, was, on the 1st of May 1648, duly conveyed to William Welby, esq. an ancestor of the appellant's, and his heirs for ever; and that the appellant and his ancestors had been seised of the said manor ever since that time, being above 100 years, and had in their own names, held Courts Leet, Courts Baron, and appointed stewards and game-keepers, and enjoyed all other rights belonging to the manor; but that the respondent had lately, without just right, appointed a game-keeper for the said manor, and had procured such appointment to be registered with the clerk of the peace, and threatened to appoint a steward to hold courts for the manor, in the name of the respondent: and that the respondent had alledged, that be claimed title to the manor, and that the appellant had no right or title thereto; that he had requested the respondent to withdraw his appointment of a game-keeper, and to disclaim all right and title to the manor; but the respondent had refused to comply therewith: and the bill charged, that the respondent's claim to the manor was without foundation, and injurious to the appellant, in regard that such claim and the appointment of a game-keeper, and of a steward, to hold courts for the manor, by the respondent, and the registering such appointment of a game-keeper with the clerk of the peace, might affect the title of the appellant to the manor, or might, at some future time, bring & cloud upon the same, and prevent the sale or disposition of the appellant's estate; and therefore the bill prayed that the [40] respondent might either disclaim all right to the manor, or in case he should insist upon any claim or right thereto, that he might discover how, and in what manner, and from whom, and by virtue of what deeds or writings he claimed or derived his right or title to the said manor; and that he night set forth all such deeds and writings in the words and figures thereof, and leave the same with his clerk in court, for the inspection and perusal of the appellant and his agents. And the bill further prayed, that the testimony of the appellant's witnesses might he perpetuated, and that proper issues might be directed to try the respondent's claim to the manor; and if, on the trial thereof, a verdict should be found for the appellant, or in case the respondent should disclaim all right and title to the said manor, that a perpetual injunction might be awarded against the respondent, to restrain him from appointing any steward or game-keeper for the said manor, and from setting up any further claim thereto.

To this bill the respondent put in a plea and answer, and as to so much of the bill as sought a discovery from the respondent, how and in what manner and from whom, and by virtue of what deeds or writings he claimed or derived his title to the said manor, and that such deeds or writings might be set forth in hæc verba, or left with the respondent's clerk in court, for the inspection and perusal of the appellant and his agents; and that proper issues might be directed to try the respondent's claim to the manor; and that a perpetual injunction might be awarded against the respondent, to restrain him from appointing any steward or game-keeper for the said manor, and from setting up any claim thereto the respondent pleaded, that he was lord of the said manor of Denton; and that he was, and he and his ancestors had been for divers years past, seised of the said manor in his and their demesne as of fee: and as to the residue of the bill, the respondent answered, that he did not know or believe, nor ever heard before the proceedings in this cause, that the manor of Denton had been conveyed to William Welby, esq. an ancestor of the appellant's, on the 1st of May 1648, as alledged in the bill, nor that the appellant and his ancestors, or any of them, had for 120 years past, or for any other time, been seised of or entitled to the said manor; nor ever till lately heard, that they had held courts, or appointed a steward or game-keeper for the same, or had enjoyed any other material rights thereto belonging, or had any right so to do. But the respondent admitted, that on

778