<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2013-07-03</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Sarah Wingo</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch B130512.pdcc.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B08772">
<STC T="W">C4276A</STC>
<STC T="C">R174048</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">[ocm]64551098</BIBNO>
<VID>184471</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="case">
<PB REF="1">
<HEAD>THE CASE OF Challoner Chute E&s;quire, Upon his Appeal from two Decrees of the Court of <HI>Chancery,</HI> obtained again&s;t his Father and him&s;elf, at the Suit of the Right Honourable <HI>Dorothy</HI> Lady <HI>Dacre</HI> and others.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Humbly offered to the Con&s;ideration of the <HI>Lords Spiritual</HI> and <HI>Temporal</HI> in Parliament A&s;&s;embled.</HEAD>
<P><HI>CHalloner Chute,</HI> the Appealants late Grandfather, upon his Marriage with the &s;aid Lady <HI>Dacre,</HI> did by Articles in <HI>October</HI> 1650. Covenant with Sir <HI>Dudley North</HI> her Brother, and Mr. <HI>Richard Barret</HI> her Son, as her Tru&s;tees, to purcha&s;e, and &s;ettle, on the &s;aid Lady <HI>Dacre,</HI> within three Years then next, a Joynture of 500 <HI>l. per Annum</HI> Value: Or el&s;e, that in default of Set|tling &s;uch Joynture, 5000 <HI>l.</HI> part of a Debt of 7800 <HI>l.</HI> owing by the Late Earl of <HI>Arundel,</HI> &s;hould be received by the &s;aid Lady <HI>Dacre</HI> or her Tru&s;tees, for the Benefit of her, her Executors and Admini&s;trators.</P>
<P>After the Marriage, the Appealants &s;aid Grandfather purcha&s;ed a Hou&s;e and Lands of 500 <HI>l. per Annum</HI> at <HI>Rohampton,</HI> with an in|tention to &s;ettle the &s;ame on the &s;aid Lady, pur&s;uant to the &s;aid Agreement, and &s;o he declared; but at her Importunity, he was pre|vailed upon to &s;ell the &s;ame to the Counte&s;s Dowager of <HI>Devon&s;hire,</HI> the &s;aid Lady <HI>Dacre</HI> having a good Pre&s;ent from the &s;aid Coun|te&s;s for her Con&s;ent: And thereupon &s;he the Lady <HI>Dacre,</HI> cho&s;e to have <HI>Sutton</HI>-Court, and Lands at <HI>Chi&s;wick</HI> in the County of <HI>Mid|dle&s;ex</HI> (which were of 600 <HI>l. per Annum</HI> Value, to be Settled on her and her Tru&s;tees for her Joynture, (part whereof was of an un|doubted Title, and other thereof was a Term for Years, held of the Dean of St. <HI>Pauls London,</HI> and the Inheritance thereof purcha|&s;ed under the Title of the then U&s;urping State,) whereupon the 7800 <HI>l.</HI> was received and di&s;po&s;ed of by the Appellant's Grandfa|ther in his Life time, without any Contradiction of the &s;aid Lady and her Tru&s;tees, and the &s;aid Purcha&s;e and Settlement of the &s;aid <HI>Chi&s;wick</HI>-Joynture, was made at the Reque&s;t of the &s;aid Lady, and accepted by her, and her &s;aid Tru&s;tees, both before and af|ter the Death of the Appellants &s;aid Grandfather, (which happened in 1659) as a full Satisfaction and Performance of the &s;aid Mar|riage-Articles: And the &s;aid Lady entred and enjoyed her &s;aid Joynture for about two years after her &s;aid Husband's Death.</P>
<P>That the &s;aid Lady, having a Legacy in Plate and Goods, of about 900 <HI>l.</HI> Value, given her by her &s;aid Husband, and being evicted of <HI>Sutton</HI> Court by the Deans Re&s;titution, &s;he preferred her Bill in <HI>Chancery</HI> in her own, and her Tru&s;tees Names, again&s;t the Appellants Late Father, as Heir and Executor of her &s;aid Husband, to have the &s;aid 5000 <HI>l.</HI> as if no Settlement had been made in pur&s;uance of the &s;aid Marriage-Agreement, and likewi&s;e for the &s;aid Legacy of Goods. And in 1664. obtained a Decree again&s;t the Appellants Father, for the Sum of 5000 <HI>l.</HI> and Intere&s;t, out of the A&s;&s;etts Real and Per&s;onal of his Father, and al&s;o a Decree for her &s;aid Legacy of Plate and Goods; although it appeared, that there wanted A&s;&s;etts to pay Debts and Legacies: And by that Decree, the Rever&s;ion of an E&s;tate called the <HI>Vine</HI> in <HI>Hamp&s;hire,</HI> expectant upon the Appealants Father and Mothers Lives, is &s;ubje|cted as A&s;&s;etts in Law by De&s;cent, when it &s;hould fall, to pay the &s;aid Ladies pretented Demand of 5000 <HI>l.</HI> and Intere&s;t.</P>
<P>Soon after the &s;aid Decree, the Appealants Father and Mother Dying, and the Rever&s;ion thereby falling into Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, the &s;aid Lady obtained a further Decree by Con&s;ent again&s;t the Appealant. during his Minority, for the Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of the &s;aid E&s;tate, cal|led the <HI>Vine,</HI> and for cutting down Wood and Timber, and allowing 40 <HI>l. per Annum</HI> a piece out of the Appealants E&s;tate, to three of her younger Grand-Children, which by Law &s;he was obliged to maintain; whereby, and by cau&s;ing her Servant Mr. <HI>Owen,</HI> to take Admini&s;tration of the Appealants Fathers E&s;tate; &s;he &s;eized all the Appealants E&s;tate both Real and Per&s;onal.</P>
<P>Which Proceedings and Decrees are Erroneous and Unju&s;t.</P>
<P N="1">1. For that the Decree orders 5000 <HI>l.</HI> and Intere&s;t to be paid in re&s;pect of Marriage-Articles, that were fully performed, even in the very Letter of them, and to the good liking, and full Satisfaction of the Parties; and when there was no Breach of Covenant, or any Action maintainable upon the &s;aid Articles.</P>
<P N="2">2. If there had been a Breach of Covenant, the Plaintiffs had no Equity, but might have pur&s;ued their Action at Law; and 'tis Errour for Equity to make a Decree, where there is proper Remedy at Law, e&s;pecially where Damages are to be A&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed by a Jury.</P>
<P N="3">3. For that no Intere&s;t or Damages ought to have been given, in regard the 5000 <HI>l.</HI> was in Nature of a Penalty, and only is ten Years Purcha&s;e for an old Life, Or if any Intere&s;t or Damages ought to be given. Yet,</P>
<P N="4">4. For that Intere&s;t or Damages are generally given: whereas they &s;hould (if any) have been given only to the time of the Decree, as they are always given to the time of the Recovery at Law; and they ought not to be given generally, or to the time of Payment; and Equity ought not to have given Damages, or further Relief than the Law would have done.</P>
<P N="5">5. For that the Decree hath not only given Intere&s;t in a Ca&s;e where none could be given by law, but hath given Intere&s;t on a great part of that Intere&s;t directly: If it &s;tand, the Lady will have as good as Intere&s;t upon Intere&s;t throughout.</P>
<P N="6">6. For that the Decree allows the Legacy of Plate and Goods valued by the Decree, at 900 <HI>l.</HI> when it appears there were no A&s;&s;etts to pay Debts.</P>
<P N="7">7. For that the Rever&s;ion that is made A&s;&s;etts did not come by De&s;cent, but by Devi&s;e to the then Defendant, and therefore ought not to have been made liabie to the pretended Demand of the Lady.</P>
<P N="8">8. For that the Decree again&s;t the Petitioner, during his Minority, gives the Lady <HI>Dacre,</HI> and her Servant Mr. <HI>Owen,</HI> Liberty to Fell and Cut the Appealants Wood and Timber, which was beyond the Power of the Court to do.</P>
<P N="9">9. For that 120. <HI>l. per Annum,</HI> is Decreed out of the Appealants E&s;tate, for the maintenance of the Ladies Grand-Children, and whom She is obliged by Law to maintain.</P>
<P><HI>For which Rea&s;ons, the Appealant humbly prays the Decrees may be Rever&s;ed and &s;et A&s;ide.</HI></P>
<PB REF="2">
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
