Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/845

and that the residue of the money arising by such sale, after payment of the several sums due, and to become due on account of the said mortgages, judgments, legacies, and costs, and also such parts of the estate as should remain unsold (if any) should be divided among the heirs at law of Redmond and Mary Barry; and that the same should accordingly be conveyed to them by the defendant Arthur Hyde, and all other necessary parties.

Pending these accounts before the Master, the appellant, by indenture, dated the 6th of October 1763, in consideration of £2000 paid or secured, conveyed his undivided third of Redmond Barry's estate, with all benefit of the decree of 1759, and, subject to all charges and incumbrances affecting the same, to Sir James Cotter, bart. and Sir James covenanted to indemnify hint from all costs of the suit, and in obtaining the decree and on the 29th of the same month, this deed was registered in the register's office in Dublin.

[116] From the time of this transaction, which preceded the report above seven months, the appellant attended the Master by a new agent and six clerk, William Deane, and William Bull, (being the same agent and six clerk employed by the adverse defendants, Henrietta and James Barry ;) and they were, previous to their attendance, served with a copy of the first decree of July 1759, and afterwards with a draft of the report, and with several notices in the cause, (on one of which Sir James made an affidavit, stating the decree and his own purchase,) and the appellant also appeared by his own counsel and six clerk, on the final hearing in December 1764.

The plaintiff's neglecting to inroll the two decrees, Sir James Cotter, as the appellant's assignee, moved and obtained an order to compel them to inrol both, and they inrolled them accordingly. But after all these proceedings, and the inrollment actually forced upon the plaintiffs, a bill of review was, on the 3d of June 1765, exhibited in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, in the appellant's name, against the respondents Townsend and Sedgeley, and their wives, and against Elizabeth Dunscombe and Richard Barry only, and not against any other of the former plaintiffs, particularly omitting all the mortgagees and legatees, and even three of the co-heirs, viz. Sir John Jefferys, John O'Neile, and Lawrence Broderick and his wife. This bill stated the original bill, the appellants answer thereto, that the plaintiff's had not replied to the appellants answer, nor was any issue joined against him: it further stated, the first decree of the 12th of July 1759, the Master's report, and the subsequent decree of the 14th of December 1764; and charged, that the decrees of July 1759, and December 1764, were erroneous, and ought to be reversed, for the following among many other errors:

I. That the decrees were founded on depositions taken in the cause, though the cause never was at issue as against the appellant; so that he could not examine any witnesses therein on behalf of himself, or cross-examine any of the witnesses examined on the part of the plaintiffs.

II. That by the last of the decrees it was directed, that the sums reported due on account of the legacies devised by the pretended will and codicil of Mary Barry, for principal and interest, and also the several legacies charged by the pretended will of Redmond Barry on his real estate, should be paid within three months from the day of pronouncing that decree; or in default thereof, that Redmond and Mary Barry's real estate, or so much thereof as should be sufficient for that purpose, should be sold.

III. That by the decree of July 1759, the Master was directed to take an account of the rents of the said estate, which Henrietta Barry received from the death of Redmond, to the time a receiver was appointed, and of the issues and profits that she made, or without her wilful default might have made, of such parts of the estate as were in her possession, to the time a receiver was appointed; but no account was directed to be taken of [117] the rents of the said estate, except of such parts as Henrietta Barry was in possession of; and no account was directed by the decree of the rents and profits of any part of the said estate, from the time the receiver was appointed, or how the same had been applied.

IV. That by the decree of December 1764, the plaintiffs were to have their full costs and disbursements by them expended in the prosecution of the cause, and the defence of a cross cause, instituted by James Barry, out of the estate; whereby the appellant's third part of the estate was charged with a third of those costs, though