Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/816

relied on by the appellants, both in their bill of review and in their present appeal, were contrary to the rules established in Courts of Equity; inasmuch as they tended to draw into examination matters already settled, or such as might have been put in issue in the first suit, or such as might have been settled on the account before the Master, by the directions given at the hearing in 1700. That the negligence or forgetfulness of persons under no sort of legal incapacity, and in matters lying within their own knowledge and power, was never deemed a sufficient foundation for a bill of review; it being an excuse which might serve at all times, and render suits endless: but if allowable in any case, it did not seem proper to be urged in favour of Sir Walter Plunkett, who was bred to the profession of the law, and, at the time of filing his original bill, was Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, and executed that office in person, and was not likely to forget or neglect his own interest. That the intent of the deed of July 1683, was only to let Sir Walter Plunkett into the receipt of the rents, and enlarge the time for redemption; but it did not thereby appear to be agreed or intended, that the money then due [72] for interest, should from thenceforth carry interest; nor was it so understood either by Sir Walter, or the appellants; who, through the course of this tedious cause from its commencement, till the time of bringing the said bill of review, never demanded more than interest for the original sum of £5000. That the appellants might have carried on the account against Mrs. Ludlow before the Master, by virtue of the decree in 1700, if they had thought fit; and since they neglected it when they had so fair an opportunity, it did not seem reasonable, that that matter should be now inquired into; when the appellants appeared to have so ample a security, and when the respondents were ready to pay both principal and interest, and had actually in the year 1716, offered to pay the appellants £10,500 which was more than what was now reported due to them; but the appellants, by all manner of delays, had endeavoured to avoid receiving the same, in order that interest might still run on at so high a rate as £10 per cent. and that they might continue in the receipt of the profits of the said mortgaged premises. And, as it was not pretended by the appellants, in their said bill of review, that their security was either scanty or defective; there seemed to be no colour for their having the benefit of the bargains alledged to have been made by Mr. Macartney, who acted therein as a trustee only for the respondents during their minority.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed, and the order and decree therein complained of, affirmed; and it was further ordered, that the appellants should pay to the respondents the sum of £40 for their costs in respect of the said appeal. (Jour. vol. 21. p.  193.)

Oliver Neve of Great Witchingham in the county of Norfolk, esq. having no child or near relation, and being seised in fee of divers messuages and lands in the county of Norfolk, and in London and Southwark, of the yearly value of £1500, conveyed