respondent give such note before he would part with the money; therefore it is no argument of respondent's being paid, especially after the many shifts and evasions used in this cause. And it was proved in the cause, that appellant had often confessed the abuses aforesaid, and the aforesaid money to be due, and declared he was not the only man who had wronged respondents, and that all he had in the world, and putting his hand to his throat said, and this too shall be at your service to make you satisfaction; and as to the objection that a commission to examine abroad was denied, that order was particularly complained against in the former appeal and affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs; and though appellant and Gates had an order for a commission, before the hearing in Chancery, and respondent joined therein, yet they never sent the same away, but kept it by them above half a year; and on hearing the former appeal, the Lords were satisfied of the proofs, and would not grant appellants any commission; and the present appeal being for the same effect and purpose with the former appeal, respondent hoped that this appeal would likewise be dismissed with cost.
Die Martis. 28 Februarii, 1698. After hearing council on the petition and appeal of William Warr, from an order of the Court of Chancery, in a cause between John Præd, complainant and petitioner, and Agnes Yates, widow and administratrix of Daniel Yates, defendants, praying a reversal of that order, or that petitioner might be relieved by explaining an order of [64] the Lords of the 27th of January, 1696,[1] it was ordered and adjudged by the Lords, that the petition and appeal be dismissed, and the order complained of affirmed.
Case 13.—Christopher Dighton,—Plaintiff; Bernard Grenville,—Defendant (in Error) [1698].
[Cited in Johns v. Pink (1900), 1 Ch. 296, at pp. 301 (arg.), 304, 306.]
The writ of error was brought to reverse a judgment, given in the Court of King's Bench, in a cause in ejectment, wherein Dighton, on the demise of the Earls of Huntingdon and Scarsdale, was plaintiff, and Grenville, defendant; and the plaintiff in error made this case: That the said Earls were seized in possession of the manor of Marr, and divers lands and tenements in Marr, in the county of York, in right of their wives, daughters and co-heirs of Sir John Lewis, deceased, who had purchased the same from Thomas Lewis: defendant, under colour of an extent on an old statute, evicted the Earls; who thereupon brought their ejectment, which was tried at the King's Bench bar, Easter Term, 1683, and the jury found a special verdict to this effect: That Thomas Lewis, 9th April, 20 Jac. I. 1622, acknowledged a statute of 1200l. to William Knight; afterwards, 20th November, 13 Car. I. 1637, another of 1000l. to Richard Gerrard; and afterwards, 27th May, 15 Car. I. 1639, another of 5000l. to Sir Jervase Elwaies and Richard Burroughs; and that execution was sued out upon all these statutes, and the premisses in question extended; and that the estates and interests of Knight and Gerrard, under said extents, were, 5th July, 1655, assigned to Edward Lewis; and that Thomas Lewis, being in actual possession, afterwards, 26th May, 1657, for 4000l. sold the premisses to Sir John Lewis, and, in Trinity, 1657, levied a fine with proclamations thereof to him; and that John Lewis, by will, devised the premisses to his brother Edward Lewis, and the heirs males of his body; and for want of such issue, to his the said John [65] Lewis's daughters, (afterwards married to the lessors of the plaintiff;) and that John Lewis died, and the premisses then, and at the time of the making the said will, were in the possession of Edward Lewis; and that Edward Lewis being in actual possession, he, in Michaelmas Term, 23 Car. II. 1671, levied a fine with proclamations, the last proclamation being 11th June, 24 Car. II. 1672, which was to the use of himself
- ↑ This is an error in the Journal book; there is no order of the Lords in this cause of that day, the date intended is the 27th January, 1692.
182
