[28] Appellant, 14th December, 1693, sold his interest in the premisses to Sutton, who was privy to the decrees, and covenanted to assign to him all his estate therein, at, or before the 25th of February following; and to procure Card to execute such lease and leases, as Card was enabled, directed, or ought to make unto Hynd or appellant. And Sutton covenanted to indemnify appellant from all ground rent, &c. from and after Christmas, 1693; and under these articles Sutton was let into possession of the premisses, then let at 300l. per ann. and received rents ever since; but in breach of his covenant with appellant, never paid one penny of the ground rent incurred since Christmas, 1693. And soon after the execution of these articles, Card, by order of the appellant and Sutton, made a draught of a lease of the said premisses to Sutton, whereby the ground rent of 250l. per ann. was to issue out of the whole; which draught was perused and sottled by council, and agreed to by Sutton, who ordered Card to engross a lease pursuant thereto; but afterwards Sutton insisted to have distinct leases, and would not accept of a lease according to the said draught: But in Hillary term, 1694, exhibited his bill against appellant in the Exchequer, to compel an execution of the said articles in specie, and that appellant should procure Card to make him twenty distinct leases; but before the appellant was required to answer that bill, Sutton prevailed on him to attend a Master in Chancery, and see if the rents could be apportioned according to the decree of that Court; and Sutton produced a rental amounting to 275l. per ann. and the Duke and his agents insisting, the premisses let were not sufficient for an apportionment. The Master certified that matter to the Court, and prayed further direction; and the Court, hearing council in the presence of Sutton and his council, July 16th, 1695, declared, that all the premisses ought to be subject to the said ground rent, and so ordered. After which, Sutton required an answer to his said bill, which the appellant put in in Michaelmas term following, and thereby set forth the proceedings in Chancery, and that he was ready to perform the agreement on his part, so far as he was impowered by the said decree and order, but could not procure distinct leases of each shop and house. And 26th October, 1696, the Court of Exchequer, upon hearing the said cause, decreed appellant to perform his articles with Sutton, in specie, with reference to the words in the articles, (unless cause) [29] that day fortnight; and 12th November following, confirmed their decree; and further, ordered a feigned action to be brought against the appellant as upon a quantum dampnificatus, to ascertain what damage Sutton had sustained by appellant's not performing his articles for the time past; upon trial whereof, Sutton recovered 100l. damages against the appellant, although Sutton had quietly enjoyed the premisses, and received the rents, from the time of his agreement, without interruption, or paying any of the ground rent. And 19th December, 1696, the Court of Exchequer referred it to Mr. Baron Blencow, to settle the leases to be granted by Card; and the Baron, notwithstanding the decree and order of Chancery, declared it his opinion, that the ground rent ought to be apportioned, and that Card ought to grant distinct leases, and having approved a draught of the leases to be made by Card, issued several summonses for Sutton to attend him, with an account of the names of the several tenants, and a particular rental, in order to apportion the rents thereof. And 20th February, 1696, appellant, in obedience to the decree of the Exchequer, assigned all his interest to Sutton, though Sutton had not executed a counter part; but, without attending the Baron, according to the summons, moved the Court of Exchequer against the appellant, for an attachment for contempt, in not performing the decree of that Court, in procuring Card to execute several leases at apportioned rents; and the 7th December, 1697, obtained an order for an attachment, upon which the appellant appeared, and was examined on interrogatories, and acquitted of the contempt, inasmuch as the lease directed by the Baron, was not perfected by inserting the apportionment; and the Duke afterwards prosecuting appellant for the arrears since Christmas, 1693, which Sutton ought to pay, and Sutton being in possession, and a prisoner in the King's Bench, in execution, (but not at the appellant's suit); appellant, in Michaelmas term, 1696, brought his bill in Chancery against his Grace, Card, and Sutton, to oblige the Duke to accept Sutton tenant, and to enforce Sutton to pay the arrears since Christmas, 1693, and Card to make such lease as
164
