[Mew's Dig. i. 328 (Bampfield v. Popham).]
This was a case different from the ordinary proceedings upon appeals in Parliament. It was a petition to the Lords, for leave to proceed on bill of review and reversal, brought by the Petitioners against a decree of the Court of Chancery. And the case made by the Petition was as follows:
Henry Rogers, in May, 1672, devised his estate to Warwick Bampfield, and others, for payment of his [2] debts and legacies, which amounted to 16,000l. and devised the surplus of his estate to Alexander Popham for life, remainder to all his sons in tail male, upon this express condition, that if Alexander should die without issue male, or if Sir Francis Popham his father should not, in his life-time, settle two parts in three of the estate, which was settled on Sir Francis on his marriage, on said Alexander and his heirs male, then in default of such settlement, testator devised part of his estate to Warwick Bampfield and his heirs, and the residue to others, all as near of kin to testator as Alexander was: and though no such settlement executed, though requested and sued in Chancery to do so, yet Alexander, after his father's death, brought a bill in Chancery to be decreed to the estate devised, and to an account of the profits, suggesting that his father had settled an equivalent on him, and on the hearing of that cause, the court decreed an inquiry by the Master, whether such equivalent were settled or not, and further directed the trustees to account with Alexander for the profits. (13th Nov. 1682. 1 Vern. 79.)
In June, 1685 (Journ. vol. 14. p. 27), Bampfield appealed to the Lords from that decree, complaining that such account was decreed to Popham before it appeared that such equivalent was settled: to this appeal, Mr. Popham, in the same month, put in his answer; after which that Parliament was prorogued, and no other Parliament was held till 1689; notwithstanding which proceedings before the Lords, the Court of Chancery proceeded in the cause, and on the first of July, 1688, the Master reported that legacies of Rogers, to a considerable amount, remained unpaid, and in order to shew that Sir Francis Popham had settled an equivalent, the Master valued the estate of Sir Francis, which had come to Alexander, at twenty years purchase, though he was only tenant for life thereof under his father's will, and did not report debts and legacies of Sir Francis, though to a great value, and chargeable on that estate, but in this manner reported that Sir Francis had left an equivalent to his son Alexander. To this report exceptions were taken; but 7th December, 1686, the report was confirmed; and 29th February, 1687, on Bampfield's petition, stating that the manner and quality of the settlement
150
