Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/957

legacy of £1000. And it was further ordered, that the said Court of Chancery should give the necessary directions for taking the said account, and for the transfer and payment of so much of the said Bank stock and South-Sea annuity stock, and of the produce thereof to the appellant, as should appear to be his proportion of the same, in respect of the said legacy. And it appearing that the decree of the 22d of July 1734 had not been signed by the Lord Chancellor, it was declared, that the appeal from that decree was brought irregularly; and it was therefore ordered and adjudged, that the same, so far as it complained of the said last mentioned decree, should be dismissed; but with liberty notwithstanding, for all parties to apply to the Lord Chancellor, if they should think fit, to rehear the cause. (Jour. vol. 24, p. 511.)^[1]

Richard, Lord Wenman, having issue three children, namely, the appellant his only son, and the respondents Katherine and Mary his daughters, made his will, dated the 22d of October 1689, and thereby gave his said two daughters £10,000 a-piece for their portions; for the raising whereof, and also for the payment of his debts, he gave to Lady Wenman his wife, whom he made sole executrix, all his personal estate, and full power to sell his lands in Hampton-Gay, and also his fee simple lands in Ensham, if need should be.

In Hilary term 1690, the danghters being then infants, exhibited their bill in Chancery against Lady Wenman, and the appellant, for a discovery of the testator's estate, and for satisfaction of their said portions; and by the decree made in that cause, on the 13th of May 1691, an account was directed to be taken of the estates liable to the said portions, which were to be applied towards satisfaction thereof.

But notwithstanding this decree, no care was taken to secure or satisfy these portions, and the several parties to that suit laving married, viz. the eldest daughter Katherine, with the Honourable Robert Bertie; the youngest daughter Mary, with the respondent John Churchill Wicksted; and the Dowager Lady Wenman, first with the Earl of Abingdon, and after his death, with Mr. Wroughton; a new hill was filed by Mr. Bertie and his Lady, and Mr. Wicksted and his Lady, against Mr. Wroughton and the Lady Wenman, and also against the appellant, in order to have a satisfaction of the said portions, and an account of the estate chargeable therewith: and upon the hearing of this cause, on the 25th of May 1710, an account was directed to be taken of the estate subject to the said portions; and it was ordered, that the same should be paid out of the personal estate, and the rents and profits of the real estate liable thereto, and out of the monies which had arisen from the sale of certain lands then sold, and not applied towards the payment of debts, so far as these several funds would extend; and if the same should prove deficient, then the several other estates charged with the payment of the [277] said portions, were to be mortgaged or sold for supplying the deficiency.

Mr. Bertie afterwards dying, the respondent Katherine, intermarried with the respondent Sir William Osbaldiston; and the suit being on that occasion revived,