RIchard Griffin , July or August 1657. the Appellants Father , in July or August 1657. conveys the Mannor of Bartherton , and all the Messuages and Lands therein to Jeffrey Minshall and his Heirs , and Edward Matthews and Henry Cole , who had prior Incumbrances joyned in the same Conveyance ; and though there be 2100 l. or some such great Summ mentioned as the consideration ; yet the same is defeazanced by Jeffrey Minshall to be a security only for 700 l. and on payment thereof to be reconveyed .

Before this Conveyance the Appellants Father , May 25. 1655. Conveyance to Edmond . viz. May 25. 1655. had conveyed parcel of the Premisses worth about 15 l. per annum , to Edmond Griffin his younger Brother , in recompence of 300 l. which he was to have for his portion wherewith the Premisses stood charged by a Deed made by the Appellants Grandfather ; which Conveyance , though prior to Minshalls , yet was subsequent to Matthews and Coles Incumbrances , and Minshall had also agreed , that all the Farms in Leases should be exempt from his Security ; and though there were Words in his Conveyance to comprehend them , yet that was to take the Estate out of Matthews and Cole , and therefore to prevent future mistakes .

Jeffrey Minshall , Nov. 5. 1657. Defeasanse of Edmonds Land ; and the Leased Lands . by Deed under his Hand and Seal , dated the 5th day of November , 1657. declares and agrees that no Lands were intended to pass to him , but only such as were in the Actual Possession of Mathews , at the time o● the Sealing his Conveyance ; and that all Lands that were conveyed , or agreed to be conveyed to Edmond Griffin , in Lieu of his Portion , and all Lands then in Lease , should not be intended to pass by his Conveyance .

Edmond Griffin accordingly enjoyed the Lands conveyed to him , and died about 20 years after ; and then the same descended to the Appellant's Father , who enjoyed the same for his Life ; and then they descended to the Appellant , who now enjoys the same , and the Rents and Services of the Leased Lands were enjoyed by the Appellant's Father for his Life , and by the Appellant since , who ought to have the Reversion thereof , as the Leases fall ; which Enjoyment being near 40 years , makes a good Title though the Appellant had no other .

That about the year , 1658. Jeffrey Minshall died , and his Estate came to Randal his Brother , and from him to one William Collington ; and during their respective Times , several Accounts were stated , and Agreements made about the Redemption of the Premisses ; but by Minshall and Collington's Contrivances , who aimed at the Estate , the same were rendred fruitless .

Randal Minshall and Collington , Whatton's Mortgage , 1680. 1683. Lingard had notice of the Appellants Title . in the year , 1680. mortgaged to Whatton for 600 l. and about 1683. Whatton assigns to the Respondent , who sets off some Debts of his own , and advances a little Money , and makes it up 1000 l. and in the year 1683. not only took notice of the Appellant's Father's Title , and exhibited his Bill against him ; but in Easter-Term , 1684. had his Answer , whereby he set forth his Claims particularly .

Yet the Respondent , August 1687. Account to clog the Estate , and make it not worth Redemption , pretends to advance further Money ; And the 22d of August , 1687. an Account is pretended to be stated betwixt Collington and him ; whereby Collington agrees , 1685. l. to be then due , and Charges the same on the Premisses to carry Interest from that time .

The Appellant's Father died , Appellant's Father dyed , 1684. Appellant at Age 1689. Hearings Nov. 14. 1690. 1684. and his Right descended to the Appellant , then an Infant , against whom the Cause was revived ; and the Appellant in 1689. attained his Age , and exhibited his Cross-Bill in Easter-Term , 1690. Whereto the Respondent answers , and confesses he had notice of the Appellant's Father's Claim , when he had lent 1000 l.

Both Causes came to Hearing , the 14th of November , 1690. and the Court declared there was no sufficient proof of Notice ; and therefore if the Appellant would redeem , he ought to pay the Respondent his Principle and Interest , due on the foot of the last Account with Collington , with Costs both at Law and in that Court , and did Order and Decree that the Appellant should before the end of the Term , give his Answer to the Register , whether he would redeem on those Terms ; and in the mean time ordered the Respondent to give him a Particular of his Demands .

By another order of the 15th . Decemb . 1690. Dec. 15. 1690. his Bill dismissed . for default of the Appellants signing the Registers Book , to signifie his consent to redeem on the Terms aforesaid , his Bill is dismissed , and he decreed to make farther assurance of the Premisses mentioned to be conveyed to the Respondent , by his Conveyance and Deed of Mortgage , ( wherein there are Words that comprehend both the Estate the Appellant hath , which was conveyed to Edmond Griffin for his Portion , and the Lands in Lease ; ) and this Appellant and his Tennants are now prosecuted for the same . Exceptions against the Decree .

The Notice is sufficient , and therefore the Appellant ought not to be charged with any Money advanced , after such notice ; nor to be concluded by any account stated with Collington after that time .

The Appellant though he redeem , ought not to be charged with the Costs that the Respondent hath disburs'd , to support his own unjust pretensions ; nor to be obliged to consent under his Hand to redeem on those Terms ; neither ought his Bill for default thereof to be dismissed .

Though he redeem not the Premisses , he ought not to be compelled to make any assurance of the Lands conveyed to his Uncle for his Portion , nor of the Leased Lands , these being exempt by the first Mortgagee , and the Appellant hath a good Title at Law to the same : And the Respondent is not deceived ; for he is in possession of all that Minshall or Collington had , which was a sufficient security for what he had lent before notice .

That after the Respondent had got this Decree , he gave the Appellant a note of 2220 l. 3 s . 4 d which he claimed as due to him , though by his Answer , three Months before , he swears to 1850 l. only .

That the Appellants Father was kept constantly in Suits by Minshall's contrivance , on purpose to disable him from redemption , and was so cheated in this matter , that he never had 300 l. of the 700 l. and yet hath lost the profit of the Estate above 30 years ; and the Estate is above 100 l. per annum , and is 1000 l. worse then it was , by Felling and Selling of the Woods and Buildings , and other wast done by the Mortgagee , and those that claim under him .