| Sir Francis's debts | £22,697 | 3 | 5½ | ||||||
| Whereof paid | 13,794 | 3 | 5½ | ||||||
| 8,903 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| 22,943 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Rests for the equivalent over and above the debts | £30,357 | 0 | 7¼ | ||||||
[7] Exclusive of plate, jewels, and timber, worth above 50,000l. So that above two-thirds of the settled estate came clear to respondent, with such overplus, and the report referred to divers schedules.
To the draft of this report, Bampfield took eleven objections, which were debated and over-ruled; and afterwards filed seven exceptions to the report: and the cause was heard thereon, 7th December, 1686, before Lord Jefferies, who confirmed the report, and over-ruled the exceptions.
The cause was finally heard 29th February following, when the first point controverted, was touching the quality of the settlement made on respondent, by Sir Francis, which had been reserved by the order of 3d July, 1683; but Bampfield then waving that order, it was discharged, and a decree on the foot of all proceedings was drawn up, signed, and enrolled. And 1st July, 1689, the appeal was heard, and the whole matter debated before the Lords; and the equivalent being questioned, the report was read in evidence, and the appeal thereupon dismissed, and the decree affirmed: and afterwards the bill of review, and other proceedings stated in the petition, were had.
And it was argued for the respondent, that now to give direction to the Court of Chancery to proceed below, would be in effect to unravel and set aside the final judgment of the Lords; and that to set aside the report of an equivalent, would be, in effect, to set aside the decree; for if there were no equivalent, there ought to be no decree. And that after such length of time, and expence of money, to reexamine the value of lands, as they were at respondent's father's death, above twenty-two years before: and to unravel what had been above ten years ago settled in Chancery, and allowed by the Lords, was not only a matter of dangerous consequence and great expence, but in a manner impossible to be done; and that the petitioner's proceedings tended to undermine and evade the judgment of the Lords, the supreme judicature and last resort, and was against the dignity of the Lords. Wherefore respondent prayed to dismiss the petition, and affirm the decree.
[8] And, Die Martis, 18 Januarii, 1697, after hearing council on the petition of Sir C. W. Bampfield, and others, praying the directions of this House, for the Court of Chancery to proceed on a bill of review, to reverse a report of an equivalent in this cause, wherein petitioners were plaintiffs, and Alexander Popham defendant: As also upon the answer of the said Alexander Popham, put in thereto, whereby he insisted, That the said equivalent had been in judgment before, and settled by this House; it was ordered and adjudged by the Lords, "That the said petition be, and is hereby dismissed this House, in regard it appeared, that the matters therein complained of, have been already settled by this House." (Journ. vol. xvi. p. 197.)
This petition seems to have been intended to feel the pulse of the House, and there is evidently a wilful confusion between the time of lodging this appeal, (which was in 1685, and is a thing always of course) and the time of its adjudication, (which was in 1689) intermediate between which, was the report complained of.
It is observable that the petitioners, in 1701, filed a bill in Chancery, for an injunction to restrain the respondent from committing waste; and for an account of what timber he had already felled, suggesting (which the Court, assisted by Holt and Trevor, Chief Justices, Sir John Trevor, Master of the Rolls, and Powel, Justice, unanimously held) that by the will, Popham was made bare tenant for life, and that he had no issue, though it appears from this report, that he was then but 30 years old; and an injunction was granted accordingly. (1 P. Wms. 54. 2 Vern. 427, 449. See also Viner. vol. v. 80, 92, 93, 155; viii. 87, 250, 251, 253, 258, 185, 241; xiv. 341; xxii. 275.)
153
