first objection is strange in a court of equity; and if it should be received for doctrine and good equity, that a person shall take my money to cause and procure a third person, his trustee, to convey an estate to me; and then shall tell me he cannot prevail upon him to do it, and yet will not restore me my money, or put me in the same condition he found me: It would encourage all manner of fraud and oppression of that nature, and [32] few men would be safe under any agreement; especially considering Sir Cornwall was of full age, knew what he did, and doth not pretend he was imposed upon by Sutton. And as to the second objection, there is no such matter proved in the cause; and, in truth, there is no such thing; neither did the Duke ever accept respondent his tenant, nor promise to make him any lease, but always opposed it, and refused it. And the decree and proceedings in Chancery are not grounded on the articles between Sir Cornwall and Sutton, and Sutton is no party to that suit; and, respondent conceived, no man can be bound by a decree who is not a party to it; and insisted that the decrees, orders, and proceedings in the Court of Exchequer, were agreeable to justice, equity, and good conscience; and that the appeal ought to be dismissed with exemplary costs, and the rather, because appellant, during his proceedings in equity against Sutton, prosecuted Sutton at common law upon the said agreement, and laid him in gaol for 3000l. and that Sutton is now actually a prisoner at his suit for the same; and during Sutton's confinement Sir Cornwall foreclosed Sutton of the equity of redemption of the mortgaged estate, which Sir Cornwall had for the security of his 1100l. and is now in the actual possession thereof, and hath been so, and received the rents and profits thereof, about 200l. a year, from 1693, the time of his articles with Sutton. (Edm. Bridges. J. Daniel.)
15th April, 1698, Sir Cornwall Bradshaw presented to the Lords his petition of appeal from two decrees of the Court of Chancery, one in a cause between John, Earl of Clare, (then Duke of Newcastle) and John White, plaintiffs, Bradshaw, Brydges, Card, and others, defendants; and one in a cause between Bulstrode and Bradshaw, plaintiffs, the Duke, White, and Card, defendants; and also from a decree and several orders of the Court of Exchequer, in a cause between Sutton, plaintiff, and Bradshaw, and others, defendants. And 17th May, 1698, Sir Cornwall Bradshaw presented a further petition to the Lords, praying that his said petition and appeal might be dismissed, as to so much of it as related to the said decrees, orders, and proceedings, had and made in the Court of Chancery; and that the said decrees, orders, and proceedings might be affirmed, which was ordered accordingly. And, Die Lunæ 6 Junii, 1698, upon hearing council upon the petition [33] and appeal from the Exchequer decree: It was ordered and adjudged by the Lords, that the said decree and orders of the Court of Exchequer do stand affirmed with this alteration,
That the said Sir Cornwall Bradshaw do procure the said Andrew Card, upon the said Sutton's performing what by the articles mentioned in the said decree he is obliged to perform, to execute one or more leases for such term and estate as the said Andrew Card, by the said articles and the decree, and orders made in the Court of Chancery, (as they now stand affirmed by this House) is enabled and ought to do, and no otherwise.
Lords Journ. vol. xvi. 264, 288. 301.
The appellants made this case: That Richard Tilsley, of London, Merchant, by his will, made in December, 1675, bequeathed all his personal estate (except some few legacies) to appellant Anne, his then wife, and appellant Thomas his son, and Elizabeth Tilsley, his daughter (since deceased) and made his cousin, John Tilsley, and others his partners, executors in trust, for his wife and children, and died in October, 1677, leaving a sum of 1131l. 10s. 9d. ready money, in his dwelling house in Coleman-Street, and a far greater sum in bags, in his warehouse in Welch Hall, under Guildhall, besides a large stock in trade; and the executor, John Tilsley, immediately took the ready money found in testator's dwelling house into his posses-
166
