releases; wherefore appellants thought that the orders ought to be reversed as to the leasehold estates, and that the renewals should be decreed a trust for the appellants. (W. Cowper. B. Shower.)
The respondents on the other hand shewed, that Henry, Lord Wilmott, Earl of Rochester, grandfather to the ladies, appellants, held the manor of Adderbury by leases for three lives from the Bishops of Winton, at 85l. 3s. 4d. rent, and was himself the last surviving life in all the leases, and that upon his death, in 1658, his estate and interest therein absolutely determined, and that for some years before his death the premisses were enjoyed by his creditors, and from his death to the restoration, by the then powers, as other church lands were. And in 1660, when the lands were restored to the church, Doctor Duppa being made Bishop of Winton, had the premisses in his then present possession, and might have kept them in his own hands, or granted them to whom he would; and [107] upon application from Ann, Countess of Rochester, relict of Earl Henry, the Bishop, in consideration of 2000l. actually paid by her, granted new leases to her, for three lives, nominated by her, as a purchaser, viz. her own life, and the lives of John, Earl of Rochester, her son, by Earl Henry, her second husband, and of Sir Francis Henry Lee, her son by Sir Henry Lee, her first husband, the Earl of Litchfield's grandfather; and as any of these lives fell, the Countess, with her own proper monies, purchased new leases, for such lives as she pleased; and Earl John died in 1680, leaving Earl Charles his only son (who died without issue) and appellants, the Ladies his daughters, having made his will, and John Cary, Esq. and others his executors; and the Countess quietly enjoyed from 1660 till her death, in 1696, and having by her bounty to Earl John and his children, contracted a considerable debt, she, by deeds executed in 1692, and her will in 1693, settled the premisses upon Sir Walter St. John, Cary and others, upon trust to pay her debts, and then for the benefit of her grandson the Earl of Litchfield and his children; and gave several legacies to the appellants, the Ladies, and made the Earl of Litchfield and Cary executors; and upon her death the Earl of Litchfield entered and enjoyed the premisses under the said deeds and will; and appellants received all or most of their legacies, and gave discharges for the same, which was a tacit affirmation of the will, but soon after, in Hilary term 1696, exhibited their bill in Chancery, to impeach and set aside the deeds and will, on pretence that great part of the lands claimed by respondents under the said deeds and will were not leasehold, but ancient inheritance of the Wilmott family; and, that although some part were leasehold, yet that Countess Anne's purchase in 1660, and all her subsequent renewals, were not for her own use, but in trust for the Earls, John and Charles, and the appellants. And respondents about the same time exhibited their bill to be quieted in the possession under the said deeds and will: and on hearing both causes, a decree was pronounced in favour of respondents, as to so much of the premisses as were leasehold, and the appellants bill dismissed; but there being some evidence that a moiety of a messuage, and some small quantities of land, (and which by a long unity of possession, could not be well distinguished from the leasehold), were the inheritance of Earl Henry, the court directed an inspection of all the deeds, and a trial [108] at law to ascertain the same; and appellants shewed that it was fully proved, that the 2000l. purchase money, and all the fines paid by the Countess on her renewals, were her own money; and that she was so far from raising any monies out of Earl Henry's estate, or gaining any advantage by the Wilmott family, that out of her jointure of about 1200l. from Sir Henry Lee, her first husband, (which was settled to her separate use on her marriage with Lord Rochester,) and other great acquisitions from his family, she supplied Earl Henry beyond seas with great sums for his support, and laid out about 1500l. on Earl John's maintenance during his minority and above 2000l. for appellants, the Ladies, education and preferment in marriage. (Hen. Pooley.)
Die Sabbati 22 Martii, 1700. Upon hearing council on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged by the Lords, that the same should be dismissed, and theorders complained of affirmed. Lords Journ. vol. xvi. p. 631.
204
