nor more than forty shillings a foot, and that when 250l. per ann. should be thereby ascertained, the Earl and his heirs should lease the residue of the premisses to Hynd for 61 years, at a peppercorn rent; and for that purpose the said Earl was to let the Premisses to Card, and to George Caudron, since deceased, for sixty-two years from the said 25th of March, in trust to make such lease; and that accordingly, 5th March, 1882, Earl Gilbert demised the premisses to Card, and Caudron, upon the trusts aforesaid; and further agreed, that Hynd and his assigns might have the benefit of a lease made to the Earl, for a free passage from Lincoln's Inn Fields, to Playhouse-Alley, paying the rent reserved thereby: and further charging, that Earl Gilbert, 16th January, 1688, made his will, and White his executor in trust for the Duke: And that the appellant, 16th October, 1688, had become bound with Hynd, in a great sum to Serjeant West, and Jane Kingdon, and that, for further securing 3000l. part thereof, with interest, Hynd, 28th May, 1685, had mortgaged all his interest in the premisses to the lady Pye, conditioned to pay her the said 3000l. with interest, in August following; and that Hynde afterwards became bankrupt, and the commissioners assigned all his interest in the premisses to John Brown, and Thomas Sands; and further charging, that the appellant and Bridges, pretended some interest in the premisses, under some extent or assignment of the lady Pye, and that Hynd and his assigns had not performed the articles and agreement on their parts; and appellant further shewed, that the Duke and White had, by their said bill, prayed that the arrears of rent might be paid, and the trust performed, or the premisses reconveyed free of all incumbrances to the Duke and his heirs.
The appellant, and Whitlock Bulstrode, thereupon brought their bill in Chancery, against the now Duke of Newcastle, (then Lord Clare)—White and Card charging, that Bulstrode had paid Lady Pye, by order of the Court of Chancery, 3000l. and interest, and taken up the said bonds, and also taken an assignment of her security in trust for the appellant. That Hynd had performed his said articles, and laid out above 5000l. in building, and paid his fine, and great part of the ground rent, and had let the houses and shops, when built, for 558l. 10s. per annum; but that the tenants were disturbed by the said Earl's entries, and forbidding [27] the shops to be used as shops, and also forbidding the tenants to pay their rents to any but him or his agents; whereby the tenants were driven away, and the houses and shop rents fell above one-half. And appellants and Bulstrode, by their bill, prayed, that the articles might be performed, and the houses and shops enjoyed accordingly, and they allowed the losses sustained by the Earl's conduct. And both cases being at hearing, 1st February, 1691, the Court of Chancery decreed, (inter alia) That it should be referred to a Muster, to examine and certify what rent had been paid, and what remained in arrear of the 250l. per annum, and of 44l. per annum, for the rent of the said passage; and when the houses and shops were built and finished, and to whom and how let; and that the leases of the premisses should commence from Lady-day, 1683, and that appellant and his assigns should hold and enjoy all houses and buildings on the premisses, in such manner as occupied since the building thereof; and that the ground rent should be apportioned on such of the houses and premisses, as should be sufficient to pay the same. And, 21st June, 1693, Sir Miles Cook, Knight, the Master reported, (inter alia) That the houses were built and finished by Hynd, in 1684; that there was due to Earl John, the now Duke, and White, at Lady-day, 1693, 182l. 10s. for nine years ground rent, above 422l. 10s. paid to their agents, and for ten years rent of the passage, 140l. and that the houses and shops were let by Hynd's agent, at 558l. 10s. per annum; and that appellant and Bridges had, by letter of attorney, 5th of May, 1688, authorized Hill to receive the rent to their use. And 25th July, 1698, the Court of Chancery over-ruled several exceptions to the report, and decreed, that appellant and Bridges should stand in Hynd's place, and pay the arrears of rent, amounting to 1967l. 10s. and take leases of the houses according to the articles, and referred it to the Master to settle the same: But on a rehearing, 18th November, 1693, the Court declared, that appellant alone ought to stand in Hynd's place, and Bridges to be charged only with the arrears incurred since he joined appellant in the letter of attorney to Hill, and be from thenceforth discharged of the accruing rent; he, in Court, so desiring, and waving all right to the premisses.
163
