call in bis money, and to enter, and not let Skelton receive the rents; and that Brown had, for gratuities given him, permitted Skelton to continue possession. And in November, 1688, Brown, to that bill, pleaded the former decrees and pleadings: And, 8th July, 1689, and 30th June, 1690, the plea was argued before the late Lords Commissioners, and ordered to stand for an answer, and the benefit saved to the hearing, and the cause to proceed to hearing; and the former depositions, by consent, to be made use of: And, 13th June and 24th February, 1694, the causes were heard, and the plea re-argued before the Chancellor, who confirmed the order of 15th December, 1687, declaring that the profits received by Skelton and [46] wife, out of the Peyton estate, (but not Ravely) must be applied to sink Brown's debt; and allowed Brown's plea to the amended bill; so that appellant had no relief for the omissions and overcharges, nor for the profits of Ravely estate; amounting together to about 4000l. and must besides pay Brown 1000l. interest and costs; Skelton having gone beyond sea, and left nothing to answer, but left appellant indebted for maintenance 142l. which appellant had paid since; besides many other sums for his school and education, while Skelton and wife received the profits of his estate. And appellant insisted that, if this account should not be opened; it will be in the power of any guardian to defeat an infant of half the profits of an estate; for interest is to be charged for the 1934l. without discount of the profits of both estates; which would have sunk the principal. And further insisted, that Brown ought to stand in the place of Skelton, and be accountable for the profits of Ravely: And that Skelton receiving the profits of both estates of the infant, both ought to go to alleviate any debt of the infants to him, as the arrears of the 500l. per ann. annuity were; and he ought not to have sold or mortgaged the debt to him upon Doddington and Coldham, to defeat the infant of what was due from him upon account of Ravely estate. And appellant further insisted, that maintenance ought not to be allowed younger children, when the estate was not chargeable with it by the will, but only with the portions to be raised out of the profits; and the mother, having so large a provision, might well maintain two younger children. And further insisted, that the plea ought not to have been allowed, but an answer ought to be made to the amended bill, especially as to the omissions, overcharges, and gratuities; and that as matters of account only were decreed in the first cause in 1676, the objection of publication of former proofs ought not to prevail: And further insisted, that costs ought not to have been given in this case, being at best a fraud, which the other side insists is too hard for a court of equity. And appellant prayed, that the account might be opened, and a discovery made of the omissions, overcharges, and gratuities, and au account given of both estates; and that Brown should stand in Skelton's place to all intents and purposes, his mortgage being of a new nature.
[47] The respondent agreed as to the wills of Sir Algernon Peyton and Sir Robert Sewster; but stated, that after the death of Sir Robert and of Lady Sewster, Dame Frances Peyton took out letters of administration to Lady Sewster her mother, and thereby became entitled to the legacy of 500l. charged on Ravely. And that Dame Frances, appellant's mother, was his guardian, and received the profits of his father's estate, and married Skelton, who, with his said wife, exhibited their bill against the appellant as stated by him; and that a cross bill was exhibited by appellant; and that the causes were heard, and an account decreed to be taken of Skelton's receipts and disbursements, touching Sir Algernon's real and personal estate, and a yearly account at every Michaelmas, so long as the trust continued, and agreed with appellant, as to the accounts taken, and the mortgage to Sir John Tracy, and subsequent reports and mortgage to the respondent; but further stated, that at Michaelmas, 1683, the lease of the manors of Coldham expired; and that estate, which before was but 100l. per ann. became 500l. per ann. and that, after the death of Skelton's wife, respondent exhibited his bill against Skelton and appellant; and appellant exhibited his bill against the respondent and Skelton, as stated by appellant; but appellant assigned no particular error in the account stated, nor any fraud against respondent, and showed the decree pronounced in both causes, and that appellant had obtained a rehearing, and the decree thereon, whereby respondent was to be liable to all the receipts of Skelton and wife, out of the said estate, since the Master's report; and appellant's council alledging his bill defective, as to several charges and omissions in the account taken by the Master,
173
