Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/815

exhibit a bill of review to reverse the decree of the 26th of June 1700; but, without assigning any errors, as appearing in the body of the decree, save only that the court did not expressly direct a particular account to be taken, of what remained due to Douglas Ludlow; whereas by the decree, all parties were ordered to go to an account: but what they principally insisted on by this bill of review was, that the deed of July 1683 had been forgot or mislaid, at the time of filing the original bill; and that, if it had been laid before the court at the hearing in 1700, the court would have allowed interest for the whole sum of £5750 mentioned in the condition of the mortgage: they also insisted, that Ludlow's mortgage had been paid off, or satisfied, in the year 1692 that Sir Walter Plunkett ought to have been let into possession of the lands comprised in that mortgage, and that the appellants ought to have had interest for the annual rents thereof from that time: it was further alledged, that the said Douglas Ludlow, in the year 1706, conveyed to the respondent James Macartney, sen. not only the lands which her husband had evicted by virtue of his said mortgage, but other lands also, of the yearly value of £400; that the rents thereof had been laid out by Mr. Macartney, in buying in incumbrances affecting the Earl of Longford's estate; and that, in consequence thereof, the benefit of such bargains ought to belong to the appellants: the bill therefore prayed, that the said decree might not stand in their way, or obstruct the relief sought for in these particulars.

There was nothing offered to support this bill, but an affidavit of the appellant Plunkett who swore, that on the 21st of November then last, he found the said deed of the 14th of July 1683, and had never before perused, or even seen the inside of the same; and he believed, that it was mislaid at the time of filing the original bill, or that Sir Walter Plunkett, through age or infirmity, had forgot it.

The respondents having demurred to this bill, the demurrer was argued on the 5th and 6th of February 1718; when the court declared, that the plaintiffs were not relievable as to all or any of the matters in their said bill of review contained and therefore allowed the demurrer, and dismissed the bill with costs.

From this order of dismission, and also from the decree of the 20th of June 1700, the present appeal was brought; but, upon its being received, the House was pleased to order, that the respondents should be at liberty to go on with the account before the Master, notwithstanding the appeal. (Jour. vol. 21. p. 82.) Accordingly, the Master reported due to the appellants the sum of £10,139 17s. 7d. only; and yet they still continued in the receipt of so much of the mortgaged premises, as, with the Master's approbation, were let at £800 per ann.

[71] In support of the appeal it was argued (S. Cowper, R. Raymond), to be agree able to justice, and the constant course of equity, that when, after a mortgage is forfeited, the mortgagor and mortgagee come to a new agreement, and it is by any deed or writing signified to be their intention, that the mortgaged premises shall stand a security for the principal and interest then due, and for the interest of the said whole principal and interest; the mortgagee shall have an account from the time of such new agreement, for the whole sum so due, and shall be allowed interest for the same and, by the said deed of the 14th of July 1683, it was expressly declared to be the intention of Earl Francis, that Sir Walter Plunkett, his heirs and assigns, should quietly hold and enjoy the said mortgaged premises, until payment of the said £5750 and the interest thereof. That it was conceived to be the known rule and practice of Courts of Equity, to make a mortgagee, who holds the premises under colour of his mortgage after it is satisfied, pay interest for the several sums he so receives, after such satisfaction; and the reason was stronger for allowing the appellants interest for the rents of the said evicted premises, from the time that Ludlow's mortgage was satisfied; because they had suffered so much by the great arrear which was due to Sir Walter Plunkett, and still remained due to them; and more especially, since there was a contrivance between the Earls and their sister, the said Douglas Ludlow, to keep Sir Walter Plunkett and the appellants out of the possession of the said evicted lands. That Mr. Macartney, from the time of Mr. Ludlow's conveyance to him, was as a trustee for the appellants, for so much money as he ought to have paid to them, out of the lands so conveyed to him by her; and that therefore, the purchases which were made by him with that money, ought to have been decreed to be in trust for the appellants.

On the other side it was contended (T. Lutwyche, S. Mead), that the matters