CHalloner Chute , the Appealants late Grandfather , upon his Marriage with the said Lady Dacre , did by Articles in October 1650. Covenant with Sir Dudley North her Brother , and Mr. Richard Barret her Son , as her Trustees , to purchase , and settle , on the said Lady Dacre , within three Years then next , a Joynture of 500 l. per Annum Value : Or else , that in default of Settling such Joynture , 5000 l. part of a Debt of 7800 l. owing by the Late Earl of Arundel , should be received by the said Lady Dacre or her Trustees , for the Benefit of her , her Executors and Administrators .

After the Marriage , the Appealants said Grandfather purchased a House and Lands of 500 l. per Annum at Rohampton , with an intention to settle the same on the said Lady , pursuant to the said Agreement , and so he declared ; but at her Importunity , he was prevailed upon to sell the same to the Countess Dowager of Devonshire , the said Lady Dacre having a good Present from the said Countess for her Consent : And thereupon she the Lady Dacre , chose to have Sutton-Court , and Lands at Chiswick in the County of Middlesex ( which were of 600 l. per Annum Value , to be Settled on her and her Trustees for her Joynture , ( part whereof was of an undoubted Title , and other thereof was a Term for Years , held of the Dean of St. Pauls London , and the Inheritance thereof purchased under the Title of the then Usurping State , ) whereupon the 7800 l. was received and disposed of by the Appellant's Grandfather in his Life time , without any Contradiction of the said Lady and her Trustees , and the said Purchase and Settlement of the said Chiswick-Joynture , was made at the Request of the said Lady , and accepted by her , and her said Trustees , both before and after the Death of the Appellants said Grandfather , ( which happened in 1659 ) as a full Satisfaction and Performance of the said Marriage-Articles : And the said Lady entred and enjoyed her said Joynture for about two years after her said Husband's Death .

That the said Lady , having a Legacy in Plate and Goods , of about 900 l. Value , given her by her said Husband , and being evicted of Sutton Court by the Deans Restitution , she preferred her Bill in Chancery in her own , and her Trustees Names , against the Appellants Late Father , as Heir and Executor of her said Husband , to have the said 5000 l. as if no Settlement had been made in pursuance of the said Marriage-Agreement , and likewise for the said Legacy of Goods . And in 1664. obtained a Decree against the Appellants Father , for the Sum of 5000 l. and Interest , out of the Assetts Real and Personal of his Father , and also a Decree for her said Legacy of Plate and Goods ; although it appeared , that there wanted Assetts to pay Debts and Legacies : And by that Decree , the Reversion of an Estate called the Vine in Hampshire , expectant upon the Appealants Father and Mothers Lives , is subjected as Assetts in Law by Descent , when it should fall , to pay the said Ladies pretented Demand of 5000 l. and Interest .

Soon after the said Decree , the Appealants Father and Mother Dying , and the Reversion thereby falling into Possession , the said Lady obtained a further Decree by Consent against the Appealant . during his Minority , for the Possession of the said Estate , called the Vine , and for cutting down Wood and Timber , and allowing 40 l. per Annum a piece out of the Appealants Estate , to three of her younger Grand-Children , which by Law she was obliged to maintain ; whereby , and by causing her Servant Mr. Owen , to take Administration of the Appealants Fathers Estate ; she seized all the Appealants Estate both Real and Personal .

Which Proceedings and Decrees are Erroneous and Unjust .

1. For that the Decree orders 5000 l. and Interest to be paid in respect 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 said Articles .

2. If there had been a Breach of Covenant , the Plaintiffs had no Equity , but might have pursued their Action at Law ; and 't is Errour for Equity to make a Decree , where there is proper Remedy at Law , especially where Damages are to be Assessed by a Jury .

3. For that no Interest or Damages ought to have been given , in regard the 5000 l. was in Nature of a Penalty , and only is ten Years Purchase for an old Life , Or if any Interest or Damages ought to be given . Yet ,

4. For that Interest or Damages are generally given : whereas they should ( 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 .

5. For that the Decree hath not only given Interest in a Case where none could be given by law , but hath given Interest on a great part of that Interest directly : If it stand , the Lady will have as good as Interest upon Interest throughout .

6. For that the Decree allows the Legacy of Plate and Goods valued by the Decree , at 900 l. when it appears there were no Assetts to pay Debts .

7. For that the Reversion that is made Assetts did not come by Descent , but by Devise to the then Defendant , and therefore ought not to have been made liabie to the pretended Demand of the Lady .

8. For that the Decree against the Petitioner , during his Minority , gives the Lady Dacre , and her Servant Mr. Owen , Liberty to Fell and Cut the Appealants Wood and Timber , which was beyond the Power of the Court to do .

9. For that 120. l. per Annum , is Decreed out of the Appealants Estate , for the maintenance of the Ladies Grand-Children , and whom She is obliged by Law to maintain .

For which Reasons , the Appealant humbly prays the Decrees may be Reversed and set Aside .