remainder of the 300l. per ann. in consideration of 3480l. applied, as is suggested, towards discharge of the debts of Jonathan, her late husband, to the discharge whereof, Sir Thomas's estate was not liable, and insist on the articles of July, 1695, stated by appellants, under colour of a pretended power in her, to charge the lands, when purchased, [42] with any sum of money indefinitely, under Sir Thomas Fowle's will. And Susanna now insists, by a strained equity, that, as she might charge the lands, when purchased, to the value thereof, so she might discharge Bretland and Fowle from making such purchase. But respondents insisted, it appears by the deed so executed, as shewed by appellants, that without the counter security thereby provided, the appellants did not consider themselves secure. And respondents further insisted, that all this was done in fraud and prejudice to respondents, as was Susanna's will, leaving the inheritance of the fee farm rents to Berkeley, after the determination of the estates tail, thereby created: and that the power of charging the fee farm rents and lands to be purchased, must be restrained to the same persons the estate was limited to; and that the appointment thereof, by Susanna's will, (being contrary thereto) was a void appointment, and so was decreed by the Lord Chancellor. (Rbt. Dormer. Thos. Filmer.)
After hearing council on this appeal, (Die Lunæ, 13 February, 1698) it was ordered and adjudged by the Lords, That the said petition and appeal should be dismissed, and the decree complained of affirmed. Lords Journ. xvi. 382.
Case 9.—Sir Sewster Peyton, Bart.,—Appellant; Humphry Brown,—Respondent [1698].
The appellant stated that Sir Algernon Peyton, his father, had married Frances, daughter of Sir Robert Sewster, and was seized in possession of the manor of Doddington, 630l. per ann. and in reversion, after the end of a lease of one-and-twenty years, to expire at Michaelmas, 1683, of the manor of Coldham, 620l. per ann. but during that lease only 100l. per ann. and had two children, appellant, five months old, and Anne, a year and an half old, and his wife being encient, he, 17th May, 1676, by his will devised to his Lady Dame Frances an annuity of 500l. per ann. for her life, payable out of those two manors and lands belonging; [43] and gave 1500l. to his daughter Anne, and 1000l. to the child his wife then went with, payable at twenty-one, or marriage; both to be raised out of the profits of those estates. And willed that his wife receive the profits during Sir Sewster's minority, and after till the portions raised to pay herself the 500l. per ann. and then for Sir Sewster's education and maintenance as she should think fit, not exceeding 60l. per ann. till fifteen years old; and after that 100l. per ann. and after that the younger children's portions. And the better to enable his wife to be kind and liberal to his children, gave her all his goods, chattels, and personal estate, and made her executrix, and died two days after; and the Lady entered upon Doddington, and received the profits, and the reserved rent of Coldham; and she possessed the personal estate. And, in October, 1672, married John Skelton, Esq.; who, in her right, possessed the whole real and personal estate; and they continued the receipt of all the profits thereof. Sir Robert Sewster, appellant's maternal grandfather, being seized of the manors of Great Ravely, and other lands in Huntingdonshire, of near 300l. per ann. by his will, 27th January, 1675, gave the same to Dame Anne, his wife, for life, and after to appellant, his grandson, charged with 500l. for his wife; and died that month, and his wife died the same week intestate: And Lady Peyton and Skelton had administration to her; and, as guardians to appellant, entered on Ravely, and received the profits thereof also. And on pretence of arrears of the 500l. annuity, debts of Sir Algernon, taxes and other outgoings, Skelton and Lady, 6th May, 1676, exhibited a bill against Sir Sewster, then not five years old, to have their accompts of Doddington and Coldham settled; and in four days had an answer put in for Sir Sewster by a guardian of their own nomination, and in Trinity, 1676, exhibited a cross bill in Sir Sewster's name, by such guardian, against themselves; which, in a
171
