Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/814

his bill in the Court of Chancery there, against Lord Longford and his brother, and also against Douglas Ludlow, the widow and executrix of the said Edmund Ludlow, and the said Richard Barry and William Fleming; praying, that the Earl and his brother might either pay him the said principal sum of £5000, and the interest thereof, or stand foreclosed; and that the said other defendants might come to an account, and deliver up possession of the lands evicted by them, on being paid what should appear due to them.

To this bill the Earl and Douglas Ludlow put in their answer, and thereby severally submitted to an account; but the defendants Barry and Fleming were never served with any process.

In January 1699, Lord Longford exhibited his cross bill, against Sir Walter, for an account, and to be at liberty to redeem, on payment of what should appear to be due to which bill Sir Walter, by his answer, said, he was ready to come to an account, and willing to receive the said principal sum of £5000, with interest and costs, and on payment thereof, to re-convey the said mortgaged premises.

On the 26th of June 1700, these causes were heard; when the court decreed, that both parties should go to an account before the Master who was to audit and state the same; in which account, Sir Walter was to be allowed his principal mortgage-money, and the interest thereof, and was to account for what he had received, or might have received, without wilful de-[69]-fault; and the consideration of costs was reserved until the return of the report.

In 1701, Earl Francis died; on whose death the honour and estate descended to his brother and heir Ambrose, Earl of Longford; and upon this occasion both suits were revived.

But in the following year, and before any great progress was made in the account, Sir Walter Plunkett died; having first made his will, and thereof appointed the appellants Stephen Ludlow and Richard Fenner, and two others (since deceased), executors; to whom he devised all his real and personal estate in trust, for the other appellant Plunkett for life, with divers remainders over; and thereby directed, that upon receipt of the mortgage money due from Lord Longford, and other sums which wore then due, the same should be laid out by his executors in the purchase of lands, to be settled to the uses of his will.

After Sir Walter's death, the causes were again revived by the present appellants; but in 1704, Earl Ambrose died, having, by his will, devised all his estate, and the equity of redemption of the said mortgaged premises, to his sister Douglas Ludlow, for life with remainder to Francis Cuffe, and the respondent James Macartney, junior, and their heirs for ever. Francis Cuffe afterwards died, leaving the respondent Michael Cuffe his brother and heir.

In Michaelmas term 1706, the appellants filed a new bill, partly in the nature of a bill of revivor, and partly as an original bill, against the said Douglas Ludlow, Francis Cuffe, and James Macartney; stating the original mortgage, the possession delivered in 1683, the decree in 1700, and the several other proceedings above-mentioned, and praying the benefit thereof.

Both suits being revived, the appellants brought in a charge before the Master, charging the principal sum of £5000 and interest for the same after the rate of £10 per cent. from the date of the mortgage, till September 1709. The Master by his report, dated the 1st of July 1712, certified the proceedings as they then stood in court, the date and conditions of the mortgage, the proviso for redemption, wherein £750 was added for interest of the principal sum of £5000, and, at the instance of the appellants, he also certified the purport of the deed of the 14th of July 1683, directing the tenants to attorn to Sir Walter Plunkett; and that in pursuance thereof, he and his representatives had continued in the receipt of the rents from that time.

Exceptions being taken to this report, it was, as to some few particulars, referred back again to the Master; and, during the subsequent proceedings before him, two interlocutory orders were made, directing the appellants to join with the Master, in letting the lands to the best advantage. From these orders the appellants thought proper to appeal; but they afterwards suffered the appeal to be dismissed, for not entering into a recognizance pursuant to a standing order of the House. (Jour. vol. 20. pp. 450, 471.)

[70] However, on the 29th of December 1718, the appellants thought proper to