Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/810

The Master, by his report of the 23d of June 1676, certified, that there was due to Plummer for principal, interest, and costs on his mortgage £471 3s. 4d. and, by another report of the 1st of July following, he certified, that there was due to Doble for principal, interest, and costs on his mortgage £1046 6s. 5d. which, with the £471 3e. 4d. that he was to pay Plummer, made £1475 38. 4d. and, deducting £381 9s. 9d. which Doble had received by rents and profits, there remained due £1136, which Bennett was appointed to pay Doble on the 3d of February 1676, or in default thereof to stand foreclosed.

Both these reports were confirmed, the decree was inrolled, and Doble paid the £471 3s. 4d. to Plummer, and took an assignment of his mortgage to a trustee; but Bennett neglected to pay Doble any part of the £1136, and consequently Doble, and those claiming under him, held the premises as a foreclosed estate, without any claim or disturbance from Bennett, though he lived till April 1698.

[63] But in November 1702, the appellant, as one of Bennett's heirs at law, exhibited a bill of review against the respondents, who were the representatives of Doble, to reverse the former decree; suggesting some errors therein, which were merely in point of form; whereupon the defendants demurred; and on arguing the demurrer before the Lord Keeper Wright, on the 12th of May 1704, it was allowed, and the bill of review dismissed.

From this order the plaintiffs appealed, alledging (J. Walker), that Bennett was a close prisoner from the time of the decree until his death; and that this constant imprisonment was a sufficient answer to the equitable bar set up by the demurrer, from the great length of time.

But to this it was said (S. Dodd), on the other side, that the decree having been made above twenty-seven years before the bill of review was filed, such bill, being in the nature of a writ of error, ought not to be allowed, either by the words or equity of the statute, which takes off writs of error to reverse judgments, after a lapse of twenty years; and that the admitting bills of review, after so long an acquiescence, was not only without precedent, but would be of the most dangerous consequence.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed, and the decree and orders therein complained of, affirmed; and that the appellants should pay to the respondents the sum of £20 for their costs in defending the said appeal. (Jour. vol. 17. p. 598.)

The respondent was seised of the manor of Hecton and Ravensworth, alias Lamesley cum membris, in the county palatine of Durham, within which manor are two great wastes or moors; one called Blackburne-Fell, situate on the west, and Chowdene-Fell, situate on the east of the manor.

In 1099, Ranulphus, then Bishop of Durham, granted this manor to his nephew Richard and his heirs; and King Henry I. by his letters patent, confirmed the grant.

The respondent and his ancestors, and the ancient owners of this manor, had enjoyed the same, and the said wastes, parcel thereof, above 600 years, according to the ancient grants and boundaries.

[64] The waste called Blackburne-Fell adjoined upon the Bishop of Durham's manor of Chester-le street; and there was a copyhold called Aydon Close, adjoining upon the respondent's boundary, which was held of the Bishop's manor, at a yearly