Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/830

18s. 4d. and a copy of the bill so taxed was duly served; and on the 15th [93] of December following it was ordered, that the order of the 2d of June should be made absolute, and the rehearing discharged without further motion, unless good cause should be shewn to the contrary, on the first day of the then next Hilary term and no cause being shewn, the order was on the 5th of February 1749 made absolute, and the rehearing discharged accordingly.

On the 25th of June 1750 the cause was heard upon the report, the Judge's certificate of the verdict, and the merits; when the report was absolutely confirmed, and the respondents Ann and James West were decreed to have $1100 sterling, being the sum found by the verdict to be the value of one moiety of the premises; and it was ordered, that the remembrancer should compute £50 a year, from the 29th of September 1728, to that day, in lieu of interest for the £1100, being the rent reserved upon the lease granted to Sir Joseph Tuite: and the computation being accordingly made, it amounted to £1086 9s. and made the whole sum £2186 9s. And it was further ordered, that £105, part of the assets of George Houghton, in the hands of his widow, should be by her paid to the respondents Ann and James West, towards payment of the said £2186 9s. and that £2081 9s. the residue of that sum, with legal interest for the same, and £213 1s. 7d. for their costs of the suit, should be and remain a charge on the manor of Bourmont, the real estate of the said George Houghton of which he died seised in fee, and should be paid by the appellant in six months; and in default of such payment, the said respondents were to be at liberty to apply to the court.

The appellant and his mother neglecting to obey this decree, the usual process of contempt issued against them; when Mrs. Houghton thought proper to comply so far as related to her, by paying the £105. The respondents Ann and James West therefore, on the 3d of February 1752, filed their bill against the appellant, in order to carry the last decree into execution, and to have the said manor of Bourmont sold for payment of their principal, interest, and costs, thereby decreed to them.

To this bill the appellant put in his answer, and on the 12th of June following, he, without leave of the court, thought proper to file a bill of review and reversal, (but which he called a cross bill only) insisting upon several errors in the two former decrees, and praying that they might be reviewed and rectified, and that the respondents Ann and James West might either he restored to the possession of a moiety of the premises, or might have a satisfaction for their demands out of the real and personal assets of Sir Joseph Tuite. The said respondents having inadvertently obtained an order for time to answer this bill, the court afterwards gave them leave to withdraw it; and on the 1st of December 1752, they moved that the bill of review might be set aside for irregularity, as containing new matter, and yet filed without leave; which the court were pleased to order accordingly.

The appellant however, on the 24th of January following, filed a new bill, praying the same relief as before, with an addition, "that this bill might be taken as a cross bill." To this bill [94] the respondents Ann and James West put in their answer, insisting upon the benefit of the former decrees and proceedings, in the same manner as if they had pleaded them in bar; and on the 17th of May 1753, they obtained a conditional decree in their new cause against the appellant, for sale of the said manor of Bourmont; and on the 16th of July following, this decree was made absolute.

But to prevent the effect of this decree, the appellant appealed from the two former decrees of the 11th of May 1744, and the 8th of July 1748, and the several other orders and proceedings contending (W. Murray, A. Hume Campbell), that the agreement of August 1700, as it exactly pursued and conformed to the prior agreement of 1698, so it proceeded upon good and valuable consideration; being expressly made for accommodating matters in contest between the parties, and for obtaining a grant which Sir Joseph did thereby, and could not otherwise obtain. That it was not only valid in its commencement as an agreement, but was confirmed by Sir Joseph's subsequent conveyances, and completed by a fine and recovery to Houghton; and that Sir Joseph's acceptance of a lease from him, executing a counterpart, and paying the reserved rent under it till his death, rendered the interest of Houghton indefeazible by any subsequent act of Sir Joseph, or those claiming under him. That the pretended settlement of 1706 had the strongest marks of fraud; for Sir Joseph was in possession under the agreement, and the prior right and possession of Houghton