case mary damson widow appellant nicholas trot and other respondent that march  a be a trustee for b as to a estate and lie out money in relation thereto  after which b the beneficiary and trust assign his interest to c a bring a  bill against c to be reimburse and c bring a cross bill for a conveyance of  the estate Lord chancellor Macclesfield hold that c shall have no conveyance  until a be pay all the money expend by he about the premise but this decree be  reverse in the house of lord there be no contract between a and c relative to  the money so expend and the credit be give by a to b personal this case arise  from some scheme as to settle the province of Carolina and depend upon many  minute circumstance wms viner vol p can report by the name of Trott v Dawson  see levuin on trust that Edward n c king Charles two by several letter patent  of the that of march in the that year of his reign and the that of June in the  that year of his reign grant and confirm the province of Carolina in America  with several power and privilege to Edward earl of Clarendon George duke of  Albemarle William earl of craven John Lord Berkele Anthony Lord Ashley sir  George Carteret knight afterward Lord Carteret sir William Berkeley knight and  sir John Colleton bart and their heir soon after which the patentee by several  deed agree to hold the same as tenant in common brown sir William Berkeley die  in have first by will devise his that part of the say province to dame Frances  his wife in fee who have afterward marry Philip Ludwell esquire they agree to  sell the same to Christopher then duke of Albemarle the then Lord Carteret the  earl of craven and sir Peter Colleton four of the then lord proprietor for  pound who make use of the name of Thomas any citizen and grocer of London as  their trustee in such purchase and accord by indenture date the that and that  of April Ludwell and his wife in consideration of pound real pay by the  beneficiary and trust though mention in the release to be pay by any convey  the say proprietorship to any in fee the equitable estate of the duke of  Albemarle earl of craven Lord Carteret and sir Peter Colleton become vest in  John Lord Granville William Lord craven John Lord Carteret and sir John  Colleton they by indenture of the that and that of June recite the conveyance  to any and his be only a trustee as aforesaid in consideration of pound apiece  pay to they by John Archdale esquire the appellant father convey the same  eight part to the say John Archdale and his heir the appellant soon afterward  marry John danson and thereupon Archdale by indenture date the saint and d of  October in consideration of pound pay he by danson and of love and affection  to the appellant convey the say eight part to danson and the appellant and  their heir and danson be put into possession accord brown er p on the death of  any the legal estate in the say eight part descend to the respondent Ann Trott  and Elizabeth more as his daughter and coheir whereupon Trott and his wife and  Elizabeth more set up a title thereto in their own right and exhibit a bill in  chancery against the appellant and her then husband to be put into possession  and have a account of the profit but they afterward strike Elizabeth more out  from be a plaintiff to this bill danson and the appellant answer insist on  their title and that the pound purchase money mention in the deed to any be  real pay by the duke of Albemarle earl of craven Lord Carteret and sir Peter  Colleton which and also the say trust any bad acknowledge both by a letter  date the that of August and by a answer put in to a bill in chancery exhibit  against he and other by the Lord Carteret when a infant afterward danson and  the appellant exhibit a cross bill against the say Trott and his wife and  Elizabeth more pray that they may convey the legal estate in the say eight  part to danson and the appellant to which bill the respondent answer and deny  their know that the pound purchase money be pay by the duke of Albemarle earl  of craven Lord Carteret and sir Peter Colleton and pretend they know brown of  no declaration of trust sign by any insist on the statute of fraud and that  any have for about eighteen year spend much of his time in the service of the  colony and board of proprietor for which he have receive no acknowledgement  and Elizabeth more say that she and her late husband have assign and release  her interest to Trott and his wife and her issue and therefore disclaim all  right to such proprietorship both cause be at issue and witness examine the  same be on the that of November hear before the Lord chancellor Macclesfield  who be please to declare that he see no cause to relieve the respondent Trott  and his wife on their bill and therefore dismiss the same but in the cross  cause decree it shall be refer to the master to see what expense the say any  be at and what he deserve for his trouble about the trust which danson and the  appellant shall pay to Trott and his wife as the master shall appoint and they  be thereupon to convey the legal estate to danson and the appellant at their  charge but as to cost his lordship do not think fit to give any on either  side This decree be only unless cause as to more who make default but be  afterward make absolute against her by a order of the that of February follow  on the that of June the master make his report the appellant husband be then  dead and first mention the conveyance to any and that the same be only in  trust as aforesaid certify that the lord proprietor of Carolina by warrant  under their hand and seal date the that of October require John Archdale  esquire then governor of that province to order the surveyorgeneral to  admeasure out acre of land for the say any and to pass grant thereof to he and  his heir in consideration of his good service and that by a grant under the  great seal of the province date the d of August produce by the respondent the  say lord proprietor as a further consideration of the say amiss service create  he a land grave of the say province and grant he a barony of acre pay d per  and per acre to commence from two year after his take possession and that by a  copy of a further grant date the that of September produce also by the  respondent the say lord proprietor by virtue of their original grant and  fundamental constitution appoint the say any to be one of the eight hereditary  lord proprietor in the room of Seth Southwell esquire who have purchase the  earl of clarendon share and be dead without heir or assign who can claim the  same the master also certify that by a entry in the lord proprietor book prove  before he date October the say grant be all mention to be make to any in  consideration of his good service to the say lord proprietor and particular  for his faithful discharge of the trust repose in he by four of they and it be  also thereby recite that the say any have agree to reconvey the trust when  require to William Thornburgh esquire then guardian of sir brown John Colleton  who be direct forthwith to act in the say trust as he do that day at the board  in the presence and with the concurrence of the say any and continue so to act  afterward both at the board and elsewhere The master further certify that the  appellant solicitor have insist that the say several grant be a sufficient  recompense for all the say amiss brown er p expense and trouble about the  trust till the that of September when Thornburgh be depute to act in such  trust take his place at the board but that it do not appear to the master that  the and acre be ever admeasured out to any or that any actual grant of the say  acre be make pursuant to the say warrant of the that October or that any have  ever receive any profit from the say grant or any gratuity for his trouble and  expense and the master also certify that from the that of march to the d of  April any constant act at the board as a Lord proprietor and from the d of  April to the saint of December he act as a Lord proprietor under the grant of  the that of September as appear by a instrument date the that of April make to  John black and sign William Thornburgh for sir John Colleton Thomas any and  William Thornburgh from which time all the deed and instrument be so sign and  also that by a settlement duly prove date the saint of march any as a portion  with the say Ann his daughter assign his eight part of the say proprietorship  late southwell and grant to he by the grant of the that of September to the  defendant Nicholas Trott in special tail with remainder in fee which testify  the say amiss acceptance of such grant As to amiss expense and trouble in the  trust from the that of march to the d of April the master certify that any  have be industrious in promote the interest of the province and procure people  to go thither and meeting and treat they at the Carolina coffeehouse and  elsewhere and may expend therein pound ayear and deserve for his trouble pound  ayear in all pound per and which for the time aforesaid amount to pound S and  which sum the master conceive ought to be bear in average among all the eight  lord proprietor because any act not for the benefit of the appellant share  only but for the whole province and that pound S d be a eight part of the say  sum he conceive reasonable to be allow by the appellant and therefore appoint  the appellant to pay the same on the that of July then next at the roll chapel  and thereupon appoint Trott and his wife to reconvey the legal estate in the  say eight part to the appellant pursuant to the decree to this report the  respondent take three exception I for that the master have not carry on the  pound ayear to the saint of September when any die two that the master have  order the appellant to pay only a eight part of the say sum brown and not the  whole and III that the master have certify several matter no wise relate to  the inquiry direct the appellant also take two exception to this report I for  that pound per and for amiss expense and pound per and for his trouble be too  great a allowance the proof in the cause which relate thereto be very lose and  not sufficient to warrant the same and ill for that the master have make no  deduction for the grant and allowance mention in the report to have be make to  any although it appear they be make in consideration of his trouble and  expense relate to the trust these exception on both side be argue on the that  of January before the same Lord chancellor who be please to overrule both the  appellant exception but allow the respondent first and second exception by  order the appellant to pay the whole pound per and down to amiss death amount  to pound S to the respondent Trott and his wife and on payment thereof they be  to convey over to the appellant at her charge what have be grant to the say  Thomas any by the say lord proprietor the appellant be prosecute to a  sequestration on this order it be on the that of October order that the say  two proprietorships shall be sell before the master to answer the pound S and  that a commission of rebellion shall be renew against the appellant until she  shall perform the decree and on the that of February follow the master report  the respondent Hugh Watson the best purchaser of both the say proprietorships  at pound and the same be convey to he accord but Watson be only a trustee and  agent in such purchase for the respondent Henry bertie and James bertie and  afterward convey one of the say proprietorships to the say James bertie and  his heir and the other of they to the say Henry bertie in like manner the  appellant after be confine in prison near two year for not pay the money  appeal both from the decree and the order upon argue the exception and also  from the several subsequent proceed and as to the decree it be on her brown er  p behalf contend c Talbot I finch that the respondent Trott and his wife be  not order to pay the appellant cost on the dismission of the original bill  notwithstanding they have against all conscience and justice set up a right in  themselves to the proprietorship and endeavour to defeat the appellant and her  late husband of their justtitle thereto and put they to great charge in defend  it against their unjust pretention that the appellant and her late husband be  decree to pay Trott and his wife what the master shall find any deserve for  his trouble and what he have expend in the trust whereas it do not appear in  either of the cause nor do Trott and his wife pretend that they be either  executor or administrator of any and consequent they be not entitle to any  satisfaction on that account if any ought to brown be allow and even shall the  appellant pay they what she be order to do it will be no bar to any demand  which may be make by amiss proper representative on the same account but if  Trott and his wife have be amiss representative and entitle to any  satisfaction for his expense and trouble yet the appellant and her husband  ought not personal to have be decree to pay the same because they never enter  into any personal contract with any for that purpose nor have they any  interest in the proprietorship till after his death and as trot bill be  dismiss it be apprehend that such a decree can not proper be make against the  appellant and her husband upon their own bill that the respondent Trott and  his wife be decree to convey the say eight part to the appellant late husband  only whereas it ought to have be to he and the appellant and their heir  pursuant to the settlement make by Archdale and that the respondent Elizabeth  more be not decree to join in such conveyance although shewas one of amiss  coheir for as to her conveyance to Trott and his wife it appear of their own  show to have be by lease and release only without a fine so that the legal  estate of one moiety still remain in her as to the order make on argue the  exception it be insist that if the respondent Trott and his wife be entitle to  have a allowance for amiss trouble and expense beyond the grant make to he by  the lord proprietor yet they ought not to have have so great a allowance as  pound per and the proof in respect of such trouble and expense be very lose  and several of the witness examine thereto be person of mean condition and  incompetent judge of what any may either expend or deserve that no deduction  or allowance be make to the appellant for the value of the several grant to  any in consideration of his trouble in the trust although it appear by the  master report that he accept the grant of Mr southwell proprietorship and  think the same of so great value as to settle it upon the respondent Trott and  his wife as a portion for her that the pound ayear be allow to the death of  any whereas it appear by the book of the lord proprietor that after any have  obtain a grant of Mr southwell proprietorship videlicet from the d of April Mr  Thornburgh act in the trust and any act in his own right only last that the  appellant be order to pay the whole sum of pound S when it appear by the  master report and so the fact be that what any do be not only for the benefit  of the appellant eight part but for the joint advantage and common good of the  whole province and therefore it be conceive that if the appellant be to pay  any thing for amiss trouble and expense it ought to be no more than a eight  part of what be reasonable to be allow on that account on the part of the  respondent Trott and his wife and Elizabeth more it be say t Lutwyche c ford  that it appear both by the proof in the cause and the master report that  neither any or these brown respondent ever have any benefit or advantage from  the proprietor warrant to any for acre of land or the Landgraveship of acre  those land never have be admeasured out but still remain in the lord  proprietor power of disposal neither do they make any benefit or advantage of  the escheat proprietorship which be Seth southwell grant to any by the  proprietor for the respondent Trott to who any convey it as a portion with his  daughter be keep but of the possession and profit of the same by the  proprietor ever since the grant thereof to Trott beside it do not appear that  this proprietorship be grant any inconsideration or recompense of any service  do by he but only to keep up the number of eight proprietor accord to their  own constitution and as such any accept it that the appellant submit to the  decree by her not show any cause why the same shall not be revive against her  when she be serve with a subpoena to know facias for that purpose upon the  death of her husband but on the contrary brown er p examine witness before the  master to who the cause be refer that the appellant not pay the respondent the  money report due the proprietorship which be southwell and grant to any as  well as that claim by the appellant be twice advertise in the gazette to be  sell and be accord sell before the master and have since be convey to the  purchaser and though this transaction take up near a year yet the appellant  never complain of the decree during all that time but suffer the purchase to  be complete and ought therefore to be bind by it on behalf of the respondent  James bertie it be contend d davenport that he be no party to the decree or  proceed appeal from and consequent can have no opportunity of assert his right  to the proprietorship which for a valuable consideration he have purchase from  the heir at law of Southwell and therefore it be conceive that his title can  not be affect by the dispute between the appellant and the respondent Trott  and his wife nor ought he to be in any manner draw into such dispute and the  rather as the appellant do not by her appeal pretend to be any way prejudice  by the sale of the say proprietorship to this respondent but after hear  counsel on this appeal it be order and adjudge that the decree and subsequent  order complain of make in the case where the appellant be plaintiff shall be  reverse and it be offer on the part of the appellant to pay the respondent  Henry Beitie the money that be pay for the purchase of the proprietorship in  question together with interest for the same it be further order that the  court of chancery shall cause a inquiry to be make what be the principal sum  of such purchase money and from the time of payment thereof to compute  interest for the same and on the appellant pay what shall be find due for such  principal money and interest to the say Henry bertie it be further order and  brown adjudge that he shall at the cost and charge of the appellant convey the  proprietorship in question to her and her heir and that the respondent  Elizabeth more shall likewise by proper conveyance at the charge of the  appellant convey all her right to the say proprietorship to the appellant and  her heir and pursuant to the consent of the appellant agent signify at the bar  it be further order and adjudge that what the appellant shall so pay to Mr  bertie shall be repay her by the respondent Ann Trott out of the asset of  Nicholas Trott her decease husband and if she shall not admit asset then a  account be to be take of asset and as to the respondent James bertie it be  order that the appeal shall be dismiss with pound cost to be pay he by the  appellant jour vol p Acherley v Acherley brown PC er report date case thomas  ACHERLEY appellant and ACHERLEY widow respondent saint February Mews dig xiv  see wither v wither Amb c lend money upon the mortgage of a copyhold estate  but beincr infirm and unable to travel the surrender etcetera be take in the  name of d her soninlaw who execute a declaration of trust c afterward purchase  the equity of redemption and the second surrender be for the same reason take  in the name of d but no declaration of trust be make on occasion of this  purchase hold that the heir of d be a trustee of the estate for the heir of c  and that d have express declare the trust as to the first surrender there be  no necessity for a new declaration of trust as to the equity of redemption  even under the statute of fraud decree of the court of exchequer affirm  Richard Acherley the respondent husband in consideration of a marriage to be  bad between they and of pound pay to he as part of the respondent  marriageportion and also of a settlement to be make by Arthur Manwaring the  respondent father of a farm and land in Nonnelly in the county of Salop of the  value of pound per and by indenture of lease and release date the that and  that of July convey a farm brown er p and land in Wolverley in the say county  of Salop of pound per and to the use of himself for life with remainder to the  respondent for life for her jointure and in full satisfaction of dower and by  another settlement of the same date the say Arthur Manwaring in consideration  of the marriage convey the say farm and land in Nonnelly to the use of Richard  Acherley and the respondent and to the survivor of they for life remainder to  the issue of that marriage with remainder to Richard Acherley in fee the  marriage take effect and soon after Arthur Manwaring die leave mary Manwaring  the respondent mother his brown widow who be leave in good circumstance be  apply to by one William Vaughan to advance he pound upon a mortgage of a  copyhold estate in the manor of Loppington in the say county of Salop after  the security be approve of she agree to lend the money but be at that time and  and infirm and the manor lie at a considerable distance from the place of her  abode so that she be unable to travel thither to take a admittance to the  estate and repose a great confidence in Richard Acherley her soninlaw she  therefore entrust he with the payment of the money and agree that he shall  take a surrender of the say copyhold estate to himself but in trust for her  accord William Vaughan at a court hold on the that of December surrender the  say farm and dands in Loppington to Richard Acherley and his heir subject to  redemption and by deed poll date the that of the same month Richard Acherley  declare that the estate so surrender be in trust for mary Manwaring and that  the pound be her proper money and covenant that he and his heir will surrender  the say premise to the say mary Manwaring and her heir and that all the  interest of the say pound shall be to her use William Vaughan have surrender  the equity of redemption of this copyhold estate to Sarah his wife she some  time after his death propose to sell the same and there be a considerable  arrear of interest due on the say mortgage a agreement be make by Richard  Acherley with Sarah Vaughan for the absolute purchase of such equity of  redemption for pound and mrs Manwaring still continue infirm and unable to  travel Sarah Vaughan at a court hold on the that of may surrender the say  premise to the say Richard Acherley and his heir and upon payment of the  purchase money he take a release in the word follow videlicet know all man by  these present that I Sarah Vaughan of Aston in the parish of Wem in the county  of Salop widow do hereby acknowledge to have have and receive of and from  Richard Acherley of Shiffnall in the say county of Salop gentleman the full  and just sum of pound of lawful English money be the full consideration of the  purchase of a certain copyhold estate lie and be in Loppington in the say  county of Salop by I late sell to the say Richard Acherley of and from which  say sum and of and from all other debt account reckon sum and sum of money due  and demand whatsoever I do hereby for myself my heir executor and  administrator full clear and absolute release acquit and discharge the say  Richard Acherley his heir executor and administrator and every of they for  ever by these present in witness whereof I have hereunto put my hand and seal  this that day of June in the three year of the reign of our sovereign lady  whether by the grace of God queen of England etcetera annoque dom brown on the  that of August follow mary Manwaring die intestate leave the respondent her  only child who soon afterward obtain letter of administration of her personal  estate by virtue whereof Richard Acherley her husband in her right become well  entitle to the real and personal estate of mary Manwaring which be of  considerable value Richard Acherley and the respondent his wife have receive a  considerable accession of fortune by the death of mrs Manwaring and have be  marry several year without have any child the respondent be desirous that in  case she shall have no issue by her husband she may have the liberty of  dispose of pound at her death to which he consent and accord by a indenture  date the that of February recite this agreement and the circumstance under  which it be make Richard Acherley and the respondent agree to levy a fine of  the say farm in Nonnelly to the use of the respondent for life remainder to  trustee for year from the death of the survivor of they in trust to raise any  sum not exceediing pound and pay the same pursuant to the direction of the  respondent by her will or deed with remainder to Richard Acherley in fee brown  er p in August Richard Acherley die instestate and without issue leave the  appellant his brother and heir the respondent his widow whereupon  administration of his personal estate be grant to her the respondent be  entitle to the copyhold estate at Loppington as heir to mrs Manwaring her  mother the same have be as she conceive purchase in trust for her by Richard  Acherley she upon the death of her husband enter into possession of it but the  appellant have the legal title by descent from his brother though in trust for  the respondent think fit in Trinity term to bring a ejectment against the  respondent tenant to recover the possession whereupon in Michaelmas term  follow the respondent exhibit her bill in the court of exchequer against the  appellant insist upon the surrender to Richard Acherley in December and the  deed poll declare the trust thereof and also the surrender in may and that  both those surrender be make in trust for mrs Manwaring her mother and that  she be her heir at law be entitle to the estate and therefore pray a  injunction to stay the appellant proceed at law and to be quiet in the  possession the appellant by his answer admit the surrender and the declaration  of trust but insist that previous to the indenture of the that of February  there be all agreement between Richard Acherley and the respondent that he  shall enjoy the say copyhold premise and the pound secure to mary Manwaring  discharge of all trust and claim whatsoever of the respondent in consideration  of his agree to give her power to dispose of the pound and that in pursuance  of such agreement the say indenture be execute he insist also on a custom of  the manor that if any person claim any trust brown in any copyhold inheritance  in the say manor do not claim the same in a copyhold court of the manor and  pray that such claim may be enter in one two or three year after the right  accrue the right or trust of such person be bar by virtue of the custom which  operate by way of nonclaim and further that Richard Acherley have purchase the  equity of redemption with his own money and have never declare any trust  thereof in Hilary term follow the appellant exhibit his cross bill against the  respondent insist on the say agreement and also upon the say custom as to the  forfeiture of trust estate within the say manor and pray a discovery of the  agreement and such relief as may enable he to maintain his ejectment to  recover the possession of the say premise and the rend and profit thereof  receive by the respondent after the appellant have answer the original bill a  injunction to stay his proceed at law which have be obtain by the respondent  for want of a answer be continue on hear of counsel on both side upon the  merit the respondent soon afterward put in her answer to the cross bill and  thereby deny that there be any agreement between her and the say Richard  Acherley her husband that he shall enjoy the copyhold premise and the pound  discharge of all trust or claim of the respondent she also deny the pretend  custom and insist that Richard Acherley purchase the equity of redemption with  the money of mrs Manwaring and that the purchase be make in trust for her and  that the release from Sarah Vaughan be a strong evidence of such trust on the  that of February both cause be hear when the court be please to declare that  the appellant as brother and heir of Richard Acherley be a trustee in the  second surrender for the respondent and therefore decree that he shall  surrender to the respondent the copyhold estate at her expense and that a  perpetual injunction shall be award to stay the appellant proceed at law and  that the appellant cross bill shall be dismiss with cost both at law and in  that court soon after pronounce this decree the appellant apply by petition  for a rehear and obtain a order for that purpose but he neglect to draw up the  order in a reasonable time the respondent upon motion get it discharge the  appellant therefore appeal from the decree in toto and on his behalf it be  urge I will W peer William that by the statute of fraud and perjury it be  express enact that all declaration or creation of trust of land tenement or  hereditament shall be manifest and prove by some write sign by the party who  be by law enable to declare such trust or by his last will in write or else  they shall be utter void and of none effect now it be admit by the respondent  brown er p that no write be ever sign by Richard Acherley her husband to  declare any brown trust concern the second surrender and yet the court be  please to declare that the appellant be a trustee in the second surrender for  the respondent but it be apprehend that in case where there be no proof by  write there be no ground for the court to declare a trust for any person to be  good which the statute have declare shall be void that the mortgage for pound  be consider both in law and equity as a personal estate which shall go to  executor and administrator and the right of redemption be to be consider as  the surplus of the land which remain unsold and as a inheritance that go to  the heir and assign this right Sarah Vaughan have and may sell to any person  and have accord sell it to Richard Acherley the second surrender from her to  he be a fair sale subject only to the mortgage for pound and as he may have  redeem on payment of that sum so may mrs Manwaring have foreclose for the  nonpayment of it that the intention of the party be full express in the  agreement of the that of February videlicet that Richard Acherley shall on his  part have and enjoy the pound as Mr Manwaring personal estate and that he in  consideration thereof shall give the respondent his wife a power of charge his  farm in Nonnelly with pound but by the present decree this intention be whole  frustrate for mrs Manwaring have no personal estate beside the pound and  therefore if Richard and his heir be not to have the mortgage estate he have  no consideration for the pound charge on his farm in Nonnelly and yet the  respondent insist upon and claim by virtue of that agreement that declaration  of trust as to land be question of fact proper triable by a jury at commonlaw  and the appellant accord have by his counsel pray a issue at law to try the  question whether Richard Acherley do ever declare any trust concern the second  surrender or any trust at all except for the pound but this issue be deny and  a perpetual injunction award to prevent all trial it be therefore pray that  the decree in the original cause may be reverse and the bill dismiss and that  the decree of dismission in the cross cause may also be reverse and that the  respondent may be decree to account for the rend and profit from her husband  death and to deliver up the write to the appellant and to pay he his cost in  both case on the other side p York r Wilbraham it be say to be admit that  Richard Acherley be a trustee for mrs Manwaring as to the mortgage make by the  first surrender he have express declare the same by his deed poll and as that  surrender be in fee and declare to be in trust for mrs Manwaring and her heir  there be no occasion for a new declaration of trust upon the surrender of the  equity of redemption and she very probable entrust Richard Acherley in this  purchase by reason of the confidence she repose in he as be her soninlaw and  of her inability to travel to take a admittance in person that by the release  brown which be take by Richard Acherley upon the surrender of the equity of  redemption it appear that the consideration of the mortgage and purchase of  the equity be consolidate together which be a implicit acknowledgement that  both come from the same hand and as the consideration of the mortgage be  indisputable the money of mrs Manwaring there be the strong presumption  imaginable to suppose that the consideration of the equity of redemption be  likewise her money there be no pretence that a distinct sum of pound be pay  for the purchase in that there be not the least colour of evidence from the  recital in the deed of February or from the proof in the cause that the power  give to the respondent of charge pound be in lieu of her pretention to the  copyhold estate or to discharge it from the trust of the mortgage but it be  only intend by Richard to gratify the request of his wife in who right he have  just before receive a considerable accession of fortune by give her a power in  case she have no issue to dispose of some part of it as she think proper as  therefore the appellant have no pretence of title to the copyhold premise at  least till the mortgage be discharge it be conceive to be a notorious  violation of the rule of equity for he to take advantage of his legal title as  trustee and make use of it against his beneficiary and trust to turn her out  of possession by ejectment and thereby put her under the absolute necessity of  exhibit a bill in equity to protect her possession by a injunction but further  the appellant do not by his cross bill set up a title to the equity of  redemption only of this copyhold estate and pray to be admit to redeem but he  set up a absolute title to the brown er p whole inheritance upon a imaginary  agreement and custom which have no manner of foundation either in law or in  fact it be therefore hope that the decree will be affirm and the appeal  dismiss with cost accord after hear counsel on this appeal it be order and  adjudge that the same shall be dismiss and the decree therein complain of  affirm jour vol p