amongst the five daughters; provided, if his daughter, Elizabeth, should within three months next after the death of Sir Thomas and Dame Joan, pay 6000l. to the trustees, to be equally divided between his said other four daughters, then the trustees should stand seized to the use of her and her heirs: The like time is given for pre-emption to the other four [75] daughters successively; and provided also, that if any of the daughters should die without issue before such division and distribution made, then her share should be paid to the survivors, share and share alike; but if such daughter, so dying, should leave issue living at the time of such distribution, then her share should be paid to such issue, share and share alike; and provided further, that Sir Thomas might, by any deed or writing under his hand and seal, revoke any of the said uses or trusts, and declare others.
Sir Thomas, by his will, 11th December, 1682, devised all his copyhold estate to the same trustees and their heirs, and reciting the settlement, appointed, that if his daughter, Frances Dennis, should, within six months after his and his wife's death, pay 6000l. to the trustees, to be divided amongst his other four daughters, then the trustees should stand seized as well of the premisses in the deed, as of the copyhold estate, to the use of Mrs. Dennis and her heirs; and in case of her failing to pay the 6000l. then to such uses as he had settled his manor of Cames by the said deed, and made his wife his sole executrix, and soon after died; and 30th May, 1688, Lady Badd died, and 29th November, 1688, Mrs. Dennis exhibited a bill in Chancery against Sackville (the surviving trustee) and her sisters, to have her time for paying the 6000l. enlarged; and Mrs. Blake also prefered her bill, to have a conveyance of the premisses upon payment of the 6000l. but neither paid any part thereof; and in March, 1689, Mrs. Dennis died without issue, having (as is pretended) made a will, and devised all her estate to Woodman, and made him her sole executor, who revived her bill; and 21st March, 1690, both causes were heard before the Lords commissioners of the great seal, and it was decreed, that Woodman should be let into the benefit of the estate on payment of 1500l. a piece to the four surviving daughters, by the end of Michaelmas Term then next; but in case he did not then pay the same, the estate was decreed to be sold to the best purchaser. (Eq. Ab. 109.%ensp;2 Vern. 166. 222.)
From which decree the said Amy Barton and William Taylor (both since deceased) and the said Margaret, then his Wife, and Willoughby and his wife, appealed; and 14th January, 1691, upon a solemn hearing at the bar, the decree was reversed, and Woodman and Blake [76] acquiesced above seven years, in which time divers parts of the estate had been sold and conveyed to several persons by the original appellants and Blake; and that Woodman had preferred the present petition for rehearing the appeal, on pretence that some persons had supplied Mrs. Dennis with money, and had prevailed on Woodman to permit them to use his name, and that they had in his name petitioned to rehear the appeal, in order to have a fifth part of the estate in right of Mrs. Dennis, to pay her debts, notwithstanding she forfeited her right of pre-emption, and the rather for that, as they pretend Sir Thomas was indebted to Mrs. Dennis, for which they ought to have a satisfaction out of his estate: But respondents insisted, that all the matters of the petition were in issue on hearing of the appeal, and that Mrs. Dennis dying without issue long before the times given by the settlement to her sisters for pre-emption were expired, and before the trustees had any power to sell her right, as well as to any part of the money to be raised by sale as to the pre-emption was determined, and that her share upon her death, without issue, was by the express words of the settlement to be divided among her surviving sisters, and could not be taken from them without subverting the settlement, and defeating the intent of the donor; and that it had appeared by the testimony of the person who drew the deed and will (taken on Woodman's own part) and other evidence, that Sir Thomas was not indebted to Mrs. Dennis, but that she was indebted to him; and that the persons who prosecute the petition, did lend her any money on the credit of the settlement or will, it was done with notice that her interest was thereunder determinable upon the contingency of her death without issue, which since happened, and that such persons were not entitled to more favour in a Court of Equity than Woodman as devisee of Mrs. Dennis himself was; and further insisted, that by the decree of the Lords commissioners, the estate was to be sold, if Woodman did not pay the 6000l.
188
