war-commodities, fell to half the price, and lessened the stock exceedingly, and that all this appeared in proof in the cause; and that it would be hard, after an account thus stated, an award made and performed, and mutual releases given, and twenty-five years acquiescence under them to lay open the account, no gross error or mistake appearing therein, and all due care having been taken by appellant's mother and uncles, to settle the account for her and her mother's advantage. (T. Powys. W. Dobbyns.)
Die Veneris, 28 Aprilis, 1699. After hearing council on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged by the Lords, that the decree of dismission complained of, should be affirmed. Lords Journ. vol. xvi. p. 456.
[85] Case 17.—Philip Doughty, Esq.,—Appellant; Thomas Coton, Esq., and Philadelphia his Wife, and Edward Doughty,—Respondents [1699].
The appellant made this case: That by articles, dated 25th August, 1679, he agreed to sell the manor of Eshar, Wayland's farm, and other lands in Surry, to Sir Thomas Lynch, (Philadelphia's late father) and his heirs, for 10,500l. to be paid at several days; and further agreed, that Edward Doughty his brother, who was then in possession of Wayland's farm, and other part of lands, should take a lease thereof from Sir Thomas for ten years, from 29th September, 1680, at 245l. rent; for payment whereof appellant should be bound with his brother, in a penal bond of 2000l. and conveyances were made accordingly, and 4500l. part of the purchase money paid, and the land mortgaged back to secure 6000l. and interest, which, according to Sir Thomas's account, was at Michaelmas, 1681, reduced to 5000l. and that 29th April, 1686, the lease was made to Edward Doughty, and he and appellant entered into the 2000l. bond, and Edward gave appellant an indemnity bond of 4000l. and afterwards, Sir Thomas Lynch being desirous to preserve his timber and woods, agreed to allow for plow-boot and other boots during the lease, 14l. a year; which was accordingly allowed in the account of the first year's rent, made up between Sir Thomas and Edward; upon which account there rested due to Edward 1l. 12s. and that Sir Thomas having taken into his hand a mill, part of his purchase, for improving of it, the river Eshar was for several years afterwards raised so high above the usual mark, that it overflowed, and damnified Edward Doughty's farm 50l. a year at least; that soon after Sir Thomas began his voyage to Jamaica, of which place he was appointed governor; and 31st October, 1681, being at Plymouth, on his way towards Jamaica, wrote a letter to appellant, that he had given Mr. Duck, his agent, instructions to pay appellant 155l. year out of his Eshar rents, to make up the interest of the 5000l. and if appellant wished to have an order for receiving Edward's rent, as well as Duck's 155l. per [86] annum, he desired appellant to send to him any paper be pleased, and he would sign it. And 18th November, 1681, he sent a note to appellant to receive only 145l. out of Edward Doughty's rent, and afterwards died at Jamaica, leaving Philadelphia, his sole daughter and heir, a minor. And that contests and suits afterwards arose about the administration and her guardianship, which continued till July, 1691, before which time the lease expired, so that no account was stated, nor allowances made for the boots, damages, nor taxes, or could any legal discharge be given for the rent: And in September, 1684, Edward Doughty continuing in possession, assigned the premisses to John Gosling: And afterwards the Earl of Torrington, who was some time Philadelphia's guardian, held great part of the farm for many years under articles from Gosling, who died in 1693. And appellant never was in possession of the farm after the sale, except that he hired some few closes from Gosling for keeping his horses during King James's camp at Hounslow: And, 17th August, 1686, appellant being desirous of having his money paid, and to be discharged of the 2000l. bond, his brother having assigned his interest to Gosling, wrote a letter to one of Philadelphia's agents for paying off his mortgage monies, and that he expected to be freed from any further concern relating to the farm. And, 4th June, 1687, Philadelphia, by Charles Herbert, Esq. her next friend, exhibited her bill in Chancery against appellant to redeem the mortgage, to which bill Edward Doughty and others were
