Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/829

or devisees of George Houghton, might be compelled to make satisfaction for the said reserved rent of £50 a year, and for the value of the reversion and inheritance of the said premises; or that the executors or heir of Sir Joseph Tuite might make satisfaction for the same; and for an account of the real and personal estates of Sir Joseph and the said George Houghton.

To this bill the several defendants put in their answers, and thereby admitted the articles and bond in 1700, the decree for performance of those articles, the conveyance and lease in 1712, pursuant to that decree, and the payment of rent by Sir Joseph Tuite till his death in 1728; but the respondent, Sir Henry, insisted upon the settlement made by his father in 1706, and that he was entitled to the premises by virtue thereof. The defendant Malone admitted that he had proved Sir Joseph's will, and possessed some of his assets; but insisted that they were in no wise liable to the satisfaction of any of Houghton's covenants with George West, Sir Joseph being in no kind of privity as to any of the transactions between them. And the appellant and Mrs. Houghton and Mr. Loftus insisted, that they had not any notice of the trial in ejectment.

On the 11th of May 1744 this cause was heard, when the court decreed, that the chief remembrancer or his deputy should take an account of the real and personal estate of George Houghton at the time of his death, and of the yearly value of one moiety of the manor of Burne, and the other lands comprised in the lease from him to Sir Joseph Tuite, and that the bill should be dismissed as against the respondent Sir Henry Tuite with costs; and as against the executors of Sir Joseph without costs.

[92] The remembrancer made his first report on the 19th of April 1746, and therein stated the value of George Houghton's real and personal estate, and certified, that one moiety of the manor and lands comprised in the lease from him to Sir Joseph Tuite, was of the clear yearly value of £50. But exceptions being taken by the appellant and his mother to this report, and some of them allowed, the report was referred back. And on the 3d of May 1748 a special report was made, as to several payments made out of the personal estate of George Houghton; and this report certified, that George Houghton died in December 1732, seised in fee of the manor of Bourmont, of the yearly value of £177, and that he devised the same to the appellant when he should attain twenty-one, he paying $1000 to his younger brothers and sisters that the appellant attained twenty-one in August 1735, and had ever since been in the receipt of the rents and profits thereof, and had paid the £1000; that these rents and profits, from the 1st of November 1735 to the 1st of May 1745, inclusive, amounted to £1681 10s. and from the 1st of May 1745 to the 1st of May 1747, inclusive, to £354, and that the same came to the appellant's hand.

On the 8th of July 1748 the cause was heard upon this report, when the special matter was ruled for the defendants, and the payments out of the personal estate allowed in preference to the plaintiff's demands; but the plaintiff's counsel praying an issue to ascertain the value of one moiety of the lands evicted, at the time of Sir Joseph Tuite's death, it was ordered and decreed, that a feigned action should be commenced by the plaintiffs against the defendants on the following issue, viz. What was the value of one moiety of the manor, town, and lands of Burne, Lismur, etc. at the time of the death of Sir Joseph Tuite, to be sold to the best bidder.

This issue was accordingly tried at the Lent assizes for the county of Longford 1748, when (the appellant not appearing) the jury found, that one moiety of the said manor and lands at the time of Sir Joseph Tuite's death, on the 29th of September 1728, to be sold to the best bidder, was worth £1100. And a certificate of this verdict being filed, it was, on the 15th of April 1749, ordered, that the same should be confirmed, unless cause shewn to the contrary in four days.

But, instead of shewing any cause, the appellant, together with his mother and Mr. Loftus, on the 19th of April preferred a petition of rehearing, and obtained the common order thereon, upon making the usual deposit. This order, however, the respondents Ann and James West moved to discharge, for surprise and irregularity; and after much debate on this motion, it was, on the 2d of June 1749, ordered, that the petitioners should be at liberty to rehear the cause, upon payment of all the costs incurred both at law and in equity since the decree, in a week after service of a taxed bill of costs; and that, unless the costs should be paid in that time, the order for rehearing should be discharged. The costs were taxed by the proper officer at £134