Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/936

by deed, dated the 17th of May 1682, conveyed his manor of Camms in Hampshire, with the appurtenances, to trustees and their heirs, to the use of himself for life; remainder to Dame Joan his wife for life; remainder to the trustees and their heirs, upon trust, to sell the same, and divide the money arising thereby equally amongst his said five daughters; provided, that if his daughter Elizabeth should, within three months next after the death of Sir Thomas and Dame Joan, pay $6000 to the trustees to be equally divided between his four other daughters; then the said trustees should stand seised, to the use of her and her heirs. The like time was given for pre-emption, to the other four daughters successively one after the other, to pay the £6000, and she that could pay the money, was to enjoy the estate; but if any of the daughters should die without issue, before the £6000 was divided, her share was to go amongst the survivors. Proviso, that Sir Thomas might, by any writing under his hand and seal, revoke any of the said uses or trusts, and declare others.

On the 11th of December following, Sir Thomas made his will, and thereof appointed Dame Joan his wife executrix; and, after reciting the above settlement, and his power of revocation, he declared. that if his daughter Frances, or any other for her, should within six months after the death of himself and his wife, pay £6000 to her four sisters; the trustees were to stand seised of the premises for the said Frances and her heirs, and convey the same to her accordingly; but, in case of her failing to pay the £6000, then the trustees were to stand seised according to the settlement, for such of the four other daughters, as should pay the £6000 within the space of three months, to them thereby respectively limited.

In May 1683, Sir Thomas Badd died, being at his death indebted to his daughter Frances in £4000 and upwards; which he had received out of the profits of her husband Edward Dennis's estate, to whom Sir Thomas had been guardian.

Soon after the death of Sir Thomas, his daughter Frances exhibited her bill in Chancery against Lady Badd, as his executrix, for an account and satisfaction of her husband Dennis's estate; but the defendant, having by her answer sworn, that Sir Thomas by his will gave the pre-emption of his estate to the plaintiff, [245] upon payment of £6000 (which was more than a double share of what the other sisters were to have) in lieu and satisfaction of what he owed her; the court, at the hearing of the cause, taking notice of this recompence, did, upon that ground only, dismiss the plaintiff's bill.

On the 30th of May 1888, Lady Badd died; and soon afterwards Mrs. Dennis borrowed £700 of one Mrs. Mills; and, for securing the repayment of it, she levied a fine, and made a mortgage of her interest in the settled estate; but, having occasion for more money, she applied to the appellant, who paid off Mrs. Mills's mortgage, advanced Mrs. Dennis £900 more, and took a fresh mortgage for the whole £1600.

On the 29th of November 1688, and just within the six months, Mrs. Dennis filed her bill in the Court of Chancery, against her four sisters, and the surviving trustee, under the settlement, praying to have the benefit of the pre-emption of the estate; and that upon payment of the £6000 the trustee might be decreed to convey to her accordingly. But, in a short time afterwards, and before the cause could be heard, the plaintiff died; having made her will, and thereof constituted one Joshua Woodman her executor, in trust, to sell the estate, and pay the £6000 to her sisters, and with the overplus to satisfy all her just debts, which amounted to about £4000 more; and both these sums were nearly equal to the value of the estate.

The cause being revived in the name of Woodman, came on to be heard before the Lords Commissioners, on the 21st of March 1690; when it was decreed, that Woodman should be let into the benefit of the estate, on payment of £1500 a-piece to the four surviving daughters of Sir Thomas Badd, by the end of Michaelmas term then next ensuing; and. upon such payment, the trustee was to convey the estate to Woodman, or as he should direct; but in default thereof, the estate was decreed to be sold to the best purchaser. (2 Vern. 166. 222. 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 109. c. 5, 6.)

But, upon an appeal to the House of Lords by Amy Barton, Margaret Taylor, and the present respondent Joan Willoughby, three of the four surviving sisters, this decree was reversed. (Jour. vol. 15, p. 30.)

In Easter term 1692, the appellant brought his bill in Chancery against Thomas Sackville, the surviving trustee, and also against Woodman, and the four surviving sisters, praying, that the estate might be sold, and his mortgage satisfied out of the