The case of John Forster, respondent to the petition of appeal of Henry Forster, which seeks to reverse a decree of dismission made in Chancery the last day of May last; and to affirm a decree made in 1674 against the said John Forster (he being then an infant of seven years of age) unless cause shewn when he came of age. Forster, Henry. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription B18588 of text R227805 in the English Short Title CatalogTextual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread Approx. 12 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 2 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. EarlyPrint Project Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO 2018 B18588 Wing C930A Interim Tract Supplement Guide L.R.305.a.7.[31] ESTC R227805 99887516 ocm99887516 190495 2240885143

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.

 Early English books online text creation partnership. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. B18588) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 190495) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books; Tract supplement ; C21:2[96]) The case of John Forster, respondent to the petition of appeal of Henry Forster, which seeks to reverse a decree of dismission made in Chancery the last day of May last; and to affirm a decree made in 1674 against the said John Forster (he being then an infant of seven years of age) unless cause shewn when he came of age. Forster, Henry. Forster, John, b. 1666 or 7. 1 sheet ([1] p.). s.n., [London? : 1690] Caption title. Imprint from Wing CD-ROM, 1996. Reproduction of original in the British Library. eng Estates (Law) -- England -- Early works to 1800. Inheritance and succession -- England -- Early works to 1800. Land tenure -- England -- Early works to 1800. eebo The case of John Forster, respondent to the petition of appeal of Henry Forster, which seeks to reverse a decree of dismission made in Chancery the la n/a 1690 2 2087 1 0 0 0 0 0 4.79 B The rate of 4.79 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the B category of texts with fewer than 10 defects per 10,000 words. 2013-11 Assigned for keying and markup 2013-11 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2014-02 Sampled and proofread 2014-02 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2014-03 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
The Case of JOHN FORSTER , Respondent to the Petition of Appeal of Henry Forster , which seeks to Reverse a Decree of Dismission made in Chancery the last day of May last ; and to affirm a Decree made in 1674 against the said John Forster ( he being then an Infant of Seven Years of Age ) unless Cause shewn when he came of Age.

Arthur Forster the Grandfather had three Sons . Nicholas his eldest , who died without Issue . Cuthber his 2d . who had Issue John the Respondent , and three other Children . Henry his third the Petitioner .

THIS Respondent saith , That Arthur Forster , the Petioner's Father , and this Respondent's Grandfather , having three Sons , viz. Nicholas his eldest , Cuthbert ( this Respondent's Father ) his second , and the Petitioner his youngest Son ; and being seized in Fee of Free-hold , Copy-hold , and Customary Lands , worth 300 l. per annum , in England , and about 116 l. per annum in Scotland ; besides about 10 l. per annum in England which he devised to the said Cuthbert his second Son , died about 20 years since . After whose death the same descended on the said Nicholas the eldest Son , who entred and was seized in Fee , and purchased other Lands of good value ; and about 16 years since died so seized , without Issue . Upon whose death , all the said Estate descended on this Respondent , as Nephew and Heir of the said Nicholas ( the said Cuthbert this Respondent's Father being dead , and leaving this Respondent an Infant of three years old , and another Son , and two Daughters . )

That the Petitioner taking advantage of this Respondent's Minority , and that his Mother had but 10 l. per annum for the Maintenance of her self and four Children , immediately after the death of the said Nicholas , entred into all the said Estate as well in England as Scotland , and got all the Deeds into his Custody : And this Respondent's Guardian having afterwards , in this Respondent's Name , and upon his Title , obtained a Verdict for the Customary and Copy-hold , and part of the Free-hold ; the Petitioner exhibited his Bill in Chancery against this Respondent , then but four years old , to be quieted in his Possession , and for an Injunction , pretending three Titles , two at Law , and one in Equity * *

Note . The Petitioner when he drew his Bill , made Walter Scot ( Father to the Petitioner's Wife ) Complainant in the Bill ; and set forth by the Bill , That the Treaty of Marriage made by Nicholas Forster was with Walter Scot : which Walter Scot died seven years before the pretended Marriage-Agreement ; which the Petitioner ( after the Respondent's Answer put in ) apprehending , got an Order to amend his Bill ; and in his amended Bill sets forth , That the Treaty of Marriage was with Sir Gideon Scot , who they never examined as a Witness to prove the Agreement .

.

I. By the supposed Settlement in the Petition set forth , pretended to be made by the said Arthur one day before his death . II. By an Agreement pretended to be made by the said Nicholas on the Petitioners Marriage with Sir Gideon Scott's Nicce in Scotland , for the setling all his Estate , after his own death without Issue , on the Petitioner in tail Male with remainder , to the right Heirs of Nicholas , in consideration of 10000 Scotch Marks Portion ; which was a meer suggestion to prevent a Demur . And , III. By a supposed Will made by the said Nicholas ; whereto an Answer being put in by this Respondent's Guardian on this Respondent's behalf , the Petitioner took a Commission into Cumberland , and there examined several of his Wife's Relations who lived in Scotland , to prove several paroll Discourses : Whereupon the Cause proceeded to an hearing , in 1674 ▪ before the then Lord Keeper , assisted with the late Judge Wyndham , who Decreed , That the Petitioner should enjoy to himself and his several Sons , and their respective Issue Male , according to the said pretended Settlement , all the Lands contained therein ; and also to Him and his Heirs all other the Free-hold and Copy-hold Lands which were the Lands of the said Nicholas : And that this Respondent when he came of Age should convey the same accordingly , unless he should then shew cause to the contrary ; and in the mean time awarded an Injunction , by colour whereof the Petitioner kept Possession of the said Estate above 14 years , and received above 4000 l. for the Profits .

That in May last this Respondent coming to shew cause against the said Decree , and having , by the Assistance of Friends , procured Counsel and Instructions proper for his just Defence , ( which was not done at the former hearing , by reason of his Infancy , and his Mothers Inability ) the Court , on long debate of the matter , and hearing the Proofs read , and what could be alledged on either side , saw no cause to give the Petitioner any relief , but discharged the former Decree , and dismissed the Bill with Costs , which is enrolled , as by the Orders and Proceedings may appear .

And this Respondent doth humbly insist , That the said Dismission is Just and Regular , and the former Decree Unjust and Erroneous ; and that if the matters insisted on at the last hearing had been observed to the Court on the former hearing , they would then have dismissed the Bill , as this Respondent is advised .

And this Respondent farther saith , That he having twice recovered at Law upon full Evidence on both sides the said customary and Copy-hold Lands , and so much of the Freehold as was purchased by the said Nicholas ; which being in ejectment , the Petitioner may have , and ought to take his proper remedy at Law , in case he be agrieved thereby , as this Respondent is also advised .

Wherefore , and for that the first Decree was not absolute , but only , unless this Respondent should , upon his attaining his Age , shew cause to the contrary ; and upon this Respondent's shewing cause , was discharg'd ; and that upon good grounds and just cause ; he humbly hopes your Lordships will be pleased to dismiss the Petition , and confirm the said Dismission , &c.

And that for these Reasons . I. For that the first Decree ( as well as this Petition ) is beyond the Bill , which seeks only an Estate-Tayle in all the Lands , as well what is in the pretended Settlement , as what was afterwards purchased ; and yet by the Decree the Petitioner is to have the Lands not in the Settlement in Fee . II. For that it appears by the Decree , that Nicholas , who is supposed to agree to confirm his Father 's pretended Settlement , was thereby but Tenant for Life : So that if that was a good Settlement , 't was not in his power to confirm it , or to do any Act to prejudice his next Brother's Right . III. For that by the Bill and Proofs it appears Nicholas was to be Tenant in Tail before the Petitioner , whose Remainder might have been barred by Nicholas's suffering a Recovery . IV. For that an Heir at Law ought not to be disinherited by uncertain parol discourses , without writing , much less when neither the Petitioner , nor his Witnesses , agree what the effect of such discourses was , but contradict themselves , and each other . V. For that the pretended Portion of 10000 Scotch Marks , sell to 4000 Scoth , and that not paid , which if it had , it amounts but to about 220 l. Sterl . whenas the Petitioner had 1000 l. given him by his Father's Will out of his Personal Estate ; who took no notice , nor in truth ever executed any Settlement ; but the pretended Deed is feigned , or else was unduly obtained in his Sickness but one day before his Death , with which 1000. l. the Petitioner might have deserved a better Portion in England * *

Note .

The Petitioner examines two Witnesses in Chancery to prove the pretended Deed of Settlement , and they both swear the Deed was executed six days before Arthur's Death ; and Arthur died 25 Dec. 1669 , and the Deed bears Date but the 24th day of Dec. 1669. So that the Deed bears date five days after 't was executed , as by the Petitioner's own Proofs ; by which it plainly appeare the Deed is forged .

. VI. For that here 's a pretended Marriage-agreement without any provision for the Wife , or Children ; nor is there any certain or fixt Agreement , whereon damages could be recovered at Law . VII . For that such pretended Parol Discourses ought not to be favoured in Equity , much less , since the Act for prevention of Frauds and Perjuries , whereby all Marriage-agreements and Contracts for Lands not reduced into writing , are void . VIII . For that if there be any such Settlement , or Will , the Petitioner's remedy is at Law , and not in Equity ; and those Pretences ought not to be used in Equity to countenance the Pretended Parol-agreement , which in truth they rather contradict than affirm .

The Reason of the Petitioner's obtaining a Decree , unless Cause , was for the Reasons following , viz. I. For that the Respondent was but of the Age of four years , and had no person to examine his Witnesses touching the validity of the Deed , and reality of the pretended Agreement ; nor any person capable of drawing his Briefs , and making Observations on the Petitioner's Proofs touching the forged Deed , and the pretended paroll Agreement . II. For that the Respondent's Counsel on the first hearing insisted only , That any Agreement whereby Nicholas was to have an Estate-Tayle , ought not to be executed against the Respondent after Nicholas's death , for that he might have barred such an Estate-Tayle ; and that these Tenant-Right and Copy-hold Lands could not be intayled , nor were subject to a paroll Agreement ; and in all Tenant-Right Estates , the consent of the Lord was necessary , and the Lord had a greater Interest whereby to admit or refuse Tenants , than in Copy-hold Lands ; and John was admitted as Heir to his Father , his Uncle , and his Grandfather ; and that the Respondent's Grandfather , on the Marriage with the Respondent's Father , had , upon a better consideration , made a paroll Agreement , whereby his Real Estate should come to the Respondent .

And the Counsel at the first hearing omitting to observe the Deed bears Date four days after 't was executed , nor observing the incoherence and uncertainty of the Witnesses , and that the pretended paroll Agreement was but a discourse or flourish on the Treaty , and no real part of the Agreement ; and that the Agreement was not such , that any Suit could be thereupon grounded at Law to recover Damage ; and that the pretended Portion of 4000 Scotch Marks was but 220 l. and that all the Witnesses being Scotch-men , and near Relations , do depose in Terms of Art unlikely to be known by them ; and the Petitioner by his Bill says the Agreements to be , That the Lands should be settled on Him and the Heirs-males of his Body ; and his Proof is of a Discourse that they should be settled o● the Petitioner in Fee .

The Case of John Forster Respondent .