brown case Isabel Le neve spinster and other appellant John Norris and other  respondent that April Mews dig xi by the establish practice of the court of  chancery there be but two sort of bill of review one find on suppose error  appear in the decree itself the other on new matter and as to new matter it  must have arise in time after the decree or upon new proof which can not have  be use at the time when the decree pass but this new proof must be such as be  not know either to the party or his attorney solicitor or agent for notice to  the attorney etcetera be by the clear rule of the court consider as notice to  the party atkins Oliver neve of great Witchingham in the county of Norfolk  esquire have no child or near relation and be seize in fee of diverse message  and land in the county of Norfolk and in London and Southwark of the yearly  value of pound convey brown er p and limit the same by lease and release of  the that and that of February to the use of himself for life remainder as to  part to his wife for life and as for the residue and the part limit to his  wife for life after her decease to Oliver neve by the name of Le neve second  son of Francis neve for ninetynine year if he so long live remainder to  trustee to support contingent remainder remainder to his first and other son  in tail male remainder in like manner to Peter neve by the name of Le neve old  son of the say Francis for ninetynine year if he so long live with remainder  to trustee to support contingent remainder remainder to his first and other  son in tail male remainder to Francis neve son of Henry neve and his first and  other son in tail male remainder to his own right heir with a power reserve to  the testator by his will to devise the premise limit to his wife after her  decease and also the residue for any term of year for payment of his debt and  such other purpose as he shall declare and a power of revocation two part of  this settlement be execute the say Oliver neve by his will date the that of  February devise to John Norris of Witton in the county of Norfolk esquire the  infant respondent great grandfather and with who the testator have be long and  intimate acquaint all his land not settle upon his wife and those that be  settle after her decease for ten year to be compute from his death in trust to  pay his debt funeral charge and legacy and after discharge of the say trust  the overplus if any to be pay to the say Oliver Le neve if then live or if he  shall be dead then to the say Peter Le neve or if he shall be dead then to the  say Francis neve his executor or administrator he give to his cousin any wife  of the say John Norris pound to Thomas Norris his godson pound and to the say  John Norris all his good chattel and personal estate not before bequeathe and  make he executor and give he pound for his trouble the testator leave his say  will and one part of the settlement in the hand of Mr Norris brown who be his  counsel and draw the same accord to his direction by a codicil date the that  January recite his will and revoke some legacy the testator will that all his  land purchase since his will shall go to and for the same use and estate as be  limit by his will of his land in Norfolk not in jointure to his wife in a few  day afterward the testator die and the say John Norris prove his will and  enter upon the estate devise to he for the trust term of ten year as aforesaid  in August Norris agree with John neve of London blacksmith the heir of the  testator for the purchase of the reversion in fee after all the intermediate  estate for pound and by indenture of lease and release date the saint and d of  August the say John neve convey the same to he accord but previous to this  transaction and in order to keep the family ignorant of this John neve and his  relationship to the testator Norris write a letter to Francis the father of  Oliver neve the infant devisee declare a great concern for the safety of the  will and that he will not trust the same out of his hand till he come to  London which he intend soon to do for the prove it in chancery and that he  shall be assistful to do therein for its best security to all intent and  assure the say Francis he shall to his best judgement endeavour to have the  intent of his testator perform for all its purpose so far as lie in he the  trust thereof be commit to he so whole which he say oblige all his care and  skill therein which he declare he be not a little solicitous to effect to his  utmost and in which he be ready to comply with the best advice he can take to  secure the end the testator design by his will in October a bill in chancery  be exhibit by Oliver Le neve the infant and the say John Norris against  Elizabeth neve the testator widow and the say John neve as heir at law of the  testator state the settlement will and codicil and pray that the defendant may  set forth what right they claim to the estate and that the witness may be  examine to preserve their testimony the defendant the widow by her answer  insist on her estate for life in that part which be limit to her by the  settlement one part of which she say be deliver to her by Norris since her  husband death the other defendant John neve by his answer say he be the right  heir of brown er p Oliver neve decease videlicet the survive son of Francis  neve who be the old son of John neve who be the old brother of Richard neve  father of the say Oliver neve decease the witness to prove the deed of  settlement will and codicil be examine to preserve their testimony but no  further proceed be have in the cause it be in such case neither necessary or  usual brown in November Francis neve the father of young Oliver die and in  June Oliver attain twentyone whereupon Norris settle all account with he and  at his request agree to assign to he the remainder of the ten year term of  which but five year be then elapse and to put he into possession of the estate  upon his execute a release of the rend and profit and of the trust wherewith  Norris stand charge by the will and settlement which release they agree shall  not prejudice Oliver right to a lease of certain land at Scarning and as to  which they will abide by the judgement of the court of chancery and accord  such assignment and release be execute soon after this a dispute arise between  Oliver Le neve and Norris about other part of the testator leasehold estate  which each of they apprehend himself entitle to and thereupon in easter term  Oliver exhibit his bill in chancery against Norris pray that he may be compel  to convey all the freehold and assign all the leasehold estate of the testator  to he and deliver up all the write relate thereto and be decree to perform the  trust repose in he as to several lease in the bill mention accord to the will  and that time say release may be set aside as to the freehold and leasehold  estate of the testator not comprise in the assignment from Norris to this bill  Norris put in his answer and say the testator declare to he that he intend he  all his personal estate not specifical bequeathe and that he conceive himself  entitle to the leaseholds one of which be of a shop in Cornhill the lessor  threaten to sue he for a encroachment make by the testator upon which he  surrender the lease and pay pound fine for a new lease which he take in his  own name and be not above pound or pound a year more than the rend to the  lessor but submit to the judgement of the court and say he have deliver up all  the rest of the land and the write concern the same to the say Oliver Le neve  but take no notice of the conveyance make to he by John neve the blacksmith No  further proceed be have in this suit the party have compromise the matter  between they and fourteen year afterward Norris make a assignment of some  lease or lease to or in trust for Oliver in pursuance of a agreement with  Peter Le neve the elder brother of Oliver and who be next in remainder after  he and the issue male of his body the say John neve the blacksmith in may  convey his reversionary interest to the say Peter Le neve and his heir in  consideration of pound and die in August follow on the saint of August old  Norris die have by his will devise the reversion which he purchase of John  neve the blacksmith when the same shall fall in to his old son John the infant  respondent grandfather for life with remainder to his first and other son in  tail male with remainder over in December Francis neve the three and last  person in the entail under old Oliver settlement die without issue brown  Oliver neve be in possession of the estate and have but one son live a infant  of so infirm a state of health that it be apprehend he can not live to attain  twentyone and Oliver be not likely to have any more child and Peter have no  child nor likely to have any he in apply to the infant respondent grandfather  who be in great want of money and offer he pound and afterward pound to  deliver up the conveyance from the blacksmith to his father but the reversion  be devise to he only for his life he can not dispose of it further Oliver neve  son be between twenty and twentyone and very infirm and his father not be able  to purchase the reversion they come up to London in order to get a privy seal  to enable the son notwithstanding his minority to suffer a recovery but the  infant respondent grandfather enter a caveat at the proper office which put a  stop to it and soon after their return into the country the son die before he  attain twentyone brown er p on the that of November young Oliver neve die  without issue male and thereupon his brother Peter enter into possession and  apply to Mr Bernee who be counsel for the norris family and desire to see the  conveyance of the reversion from the blacksmith to old Norris and Mr Bernee  ask his reason for desire it he say he have a conveyance of the reversion from  the blacksmith and pretend he want to see which of the two conveyance be prior  Mr Bernee not have before hear of the conveyance to Peter answer if he will  show his deed the other shall be produce at the same time but Peter refuse  after this the say Peter Le neve apply to mrs earl a friend of the norris and  tell her he be desirous of purchase Mr norris reversion in this estate and  will give pound for it which will be of great service to he who be encumber  and frequent arrest and upon her say she think if not a valuable consideration  he say he will give more and desire her to speak to he which she do and norris  answer be he have not power to sell it in January John Norris the infant  respondent grandfather die leave John Norris his only son and heir at law  Peter Le neve be a widower about sixty four year old and pretend some claim to  the reversion make a proposal in to marry a sister of the infant respondent  father then about fifteen year old and have but a small fortune and insinuate  to Mr Bernee that if this be accept he will yield up his claim to the  reversion in fee upon which a meeting be have but the propose provision for  the young lady be think not sufficient the matter break off on the saint of  October Peter neve die without issue have make his will whereby he devise all  his land and hereditament in Norfolk Middlesex Surrey and London the reversion  whereof he have purchase from John neve the blacksmith to the three daughter  of his late brother Oliver and their heir brown namely the appellant Isabel la  neve Henrietta late wife of the appellant Edward Le neve and mother of the  appellant Peter Le neve and Ann then wife of dr Roger and mother of the  appellant Ann grave and they as coheiress and devisees of Peter get into  possession of a considerable part of the estate and get most of the deed  relate thereto all the limitation in the first settlement be spend upon the  death of Peter neve without issue the reversion in fee become vest in John  Norris the infant respondent father who in April be then a infant bring his  bill in chancery against the appellant Isabel Le neve Edward Le neve and  Henrietta his then wife and John Roger and Ann his wife pray that they may set  forth what right they claim to the estate and account for the profit and  deliver up possession and all deed and write concern the same and that witness  may be examine to perpetuate their testimony No answer be put in to this bill  in easter term the respondent father be still a infant bring ejectment for the  land in Norfolk whereto the defendant to the last mention bill appear and make  themselves defendant with the tenant in possession and upon a long trial by a  special jury before the Lord chief justice Raymond at the summer assize and  full defence make a verdict be give for the plaintiff for all the freehold  land in that county except shackle farm which by a act of parliament in be  vest in trustee for the same use as the land recover but the plaintiff counsel  be not then apprise of that matter judgement be enter on this verdict the  defendant bring a writ of error and afterward file their cross bill against  the respondent father in which they charge that old Mr neve the settler of the  estate acquaint Mr Norris who be a barrister at law with his mind to settle  his estate upon the say Oliver Peter and Francis neve and their first and  other son in tail male as before mention and for default of such issue so as  that the same may remain in the family of the say Oliver and Peter son of  Francis Le neve of London draper who he suppose to be his right heir and that  Norris declare he to be the near relation then know and prepare the settlement  and will accord that the grantors intention be to preserve the estate in his  own name and blood and that Norris ought to be consider as a trustee only for  the party interest in the say trust estate that Norris on the death of the  testator possess the personal estate and receive the profit of the real for  five year and have a overplus beyond what will pay brown er p debt and legacy  but refuse to quit possession unless Oliver Peter and Francis will release  that Oliver be under difficulty be force to comply and execute a release and  take a assignment of the remainder of the ten year term by deed of the d of  October that soon after the death of the grantor it be rumour that one John  neve a blacksmith in London be his heir at law and thereupon Oliver and Peter  neve complain to brown Norris who be soon to go to London that if the report  be true he have do ill by limit the remainder in fee to the right heir of the  grantor which he know be contrary to his direction and that it be so do upon  his assure the grantor that their father be the right heir that at the request  of Peter Norris undertake to inquire after the blacksmith and get a account of  his pedigree and prepare a conveyance of the reversion from he to Peter and  his heir for such consideration as he can agree on but that on his return he  say he have inquire and can not hear of any such person that Peter neve go  afterward to London find a person who go by that name of low condition and  tell he of the report and show he the settlement who declare he be a stranger  to the grantor and do not know whether he be relate to he or not but if he be  his heir at law he have no hope of the estate after so many limitation and  therefore agree to sell his reversion to Peter for pound and accord convey it  to he and his heir by bargain and sale date the saint of may enrol in chancery  that Peter do not suspect that Norris have purchase the reversion nor do  Norris who be privy to Peter purchase ever intimate that any conveyance have  be make to he but always declare himself to be no other than a executor in  trust without set up any claim to the reversion that as counsellor to the  family of the Neves he get into his possession all the deed and write belong  to they whereby their pedigree may be make out and that the infant respondent  father have bring ejectment and recover judgement for the freehold land and  therefore the bill pray a discovery of all the deed and write and that they  may be deliver up and the conveyance to Peter Le neve from the blacksmith  establish and that to Norris cancel and all proceed upon the ejectment stay in  Michaelmas term the respondent father be still a infant deliver other  ejectment for shackle farm and such of the estate as lie in London and  Southwark but before any further proceed be have either at law or in equity  the defendant to the original bill and plaintiff in the cross bill come to a  agreement which be reduce into write and sign by the clerk in court for all  party by which it be agree that the copyhold and leasehold land which lie  intermix with the freehold shall be distinguish when John Norris come of age  and that the Neves shall be allow a fair rend for the same to be judge by two  indifferent person and be let into possession that Norris shall without trial  be let into possession of all the freehold in London Southwark and Norfolk  comprise in the blacksmith title and all proceed in law and equity be to  remain as they be till Norris come of age except the examination of witness de  bene be on both side and that shackle farm shall be presume to be part of the  Norfolk freehold John Roger and Ann his wife soon after die leave issue the  appellant Ann grave and Henrietta wife of the appellant brown Edward neve die  leave issue the appellant Peter and the respondent Elizabeth on the that of  October John Norris die leave the respondent John Norris his only son and heir  who in November file his bill of revivor and supplement against the appellant  and Ann Norris his mother and John monk as executor of his father and denshire  Stukly and cust as administrator of John Roger pray that they may set forth  whether they insist upon any and what title to any and what part of the estate  in question that they may inspect all the deed paper and write and distinguish  the copyhold from the freehold and that the same may be divide by commission  of partition that the infant may be let into possession of the freehold and  his right established That he may have the benefit of the agreement make by  the clerk in court and all the deed and write deliver up to he and a account  of the rend and profit of the freehold estate and the benefit of all the  proceed at law and in equity and be quiet in possession brown er p the  appellant put in their answer to the same effect with the cross bill file ten  year before and particular insist that John Norris conceal his conveyance from  the Neves that his take it be a breach of trust and that he ought to be deem a  trustee for Peter and his heir they say they have cause all the deed and write  in their custody or power to be inspect by their solicitor but can not thereby  distinguish the freehold and copyhold land they admit the agreement by the  clerk in court but say it be not intend to bind nor can bind the interest of  any of the party and hope they shall not be conclude thereby or be oblige to  account for the rend and profit of the estate but that the respondent great  grandfather shall be deem a trustee for they and the respondent be oblige to  account with they for the rend and profit the other defendant have put in  their answer a commission issue for the examination of witness in which the  appellant join but do not examine any witness though several be examine for  the infant respondent on who behalf a order be make that he shall be at  liberty at the hear of the cause to read the bill answer and deposition in the  cause neve against neve in on the that of July the cause be hear before the  Lord chancellor Hardwicke when it be refer to a master to take a account of  the rend and profit of the freehold estate to which the infant respondent be  then entitle which have accrue since the death of Peter neve and that what  shall be find to have accrue due in the life of the infant respondent father  shall be pay to his executor and what be due since his death shall be pay into  the bank for the benefit of the infant and that the appellant Isabel and  Edward neve shall deliver possession of shackle farm to the infant respondent  guardian for his use and that the rest of the freehold estate shall be  distinguish from the copyhold and leasehold land belong brown to any of the  appellant and a commission be to issue to set they out by meet and bind and  that all deed etcetera in the hand of any of the party shall be produce upon  oath before the commissioner and such as shall belong to the freehold shall be  deliver to the infant respondent guardian for his benefit a commission accord  issue which be soon after execute by the commissioner name by all party and  the estate be distinguish and set out by meet and bind in February follow the  infant respondent prefer his petition that the cause may be set down for  further direction on the return of the commission and as to other matter  reserve at the hear but before the same can come on the appellant prefer their  petition set forth that since the decree they discover that they be heir at  law to the blacksmith who be dead without issue which they have never hear of  before and therefore they do not nor can claim as his heir and that the  appellant Matthew grave have marry the appellant Ann after the decree and pray  leave to exhibit their supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review and  to apply for a rehear and that all proceed upon the decree may be stay on the  d of June this petition come on to be hear and to prove that the appellant be  heir to the blacksmith they make a affidavit which be read whereby they swear  positive to their own and the blacksmith pedigree so far back as the year but  it be impossible the particular can fall within their knowledge the court  order the petition to stand over till the day of petition after Michaelmas  term and that both side shall file their affidavit by a certain time in the  order limit several affidavit be accord file for the appellant and several in  answer to they for the infant respondent by which it appear not only that the  appellant be not heir to the blacksmith but that the infant respondent  probable be and certain be much near of kin both to the blacksmith and old  Oliver neve than the appellant or those under who they claim on the d of  October follow the petition come on again to be hear but the appellant do not  think proper to attempt to support it and therefore suffer it to be dismiss  with cost however in a few day afterward the appellant prefer another petition  wherein they set forth most of the allegation of their former petition and  their bill brown er p and answer except that of their be heir to the  blacksmith and particular the manner of obtain John norris conveyance from  John neve the blacksmith his have be employ as counsel by old Oliver in many  conveyance particular in this settlement and in prepare his will and be a  trustee in it his be guilty of a breach of brown trust in make the purchase  and in conceal it from the appellant ancestor and that therefore it ought now  to be deem to have be a trust for and shall have be take in the name of Oliver  Peter and Francis neve to who the estate be successive limit and that they  have late since June last discover several new evidence to make out these  allegation and set forth these new evidence to be a letter of the d of April  to Francis Le neve from old Norris wherein he say he will endeavour to have  the intent of his cousin neve the testator perform the trust thereof be commit  to he the bill file the d of October against the widow neve and the blacksmith  the widow answer the bill file that may by Oliver neve against old Mr Norris  and the answer the assignment by old Mr Norris in August of several lease to  trustee in trust for Oliver neve the release to old Norris by the Neves and  several deed to which he be a witness and they allege that their solicitor and  agent be ignorant of any legal proof thereof or of any of the new fact now  allege at the hear of the cause they likewise allege that old Mr norris  purchase be make while he be in possession of the estate in trust for the  appellant ancestor and therefore he ought not to be allow to purchase for his  own benefit that in regard the evidence the appellant will offer be not such  as can be liable to any suspicion the great part be ancient write proof and  chief from the record of the court and that the appellant be ignorant of these  new matter and of the proof of the fact allege in their answer at the hear and  in regard also to the dangerous precedent of suffer a man of law entrust in a  family and in possession of their estate by a will and deed of his own make to  acquire to himself and his family at any distance of time or under any  contingency a unjust advantage of the trust repose in he they pray as in their  former petition this second petition be hear before Lord Hardwicke on the that  of January and that and that of February when the appellant read fourteen  affidavit three of which be make by William haver their solicitor in the cause  who swear that till the that of June last he do not know that the appellant  can prove old Mr Norris be counsel for old Mr neve or prepare his settlement  and will or that he purchase the reversion while he be in possession for  Oliver neve or that he take any lease of any part of old Mr neve estate in his  own name or that the deponent know of the proceed in and three other of the  affidavit be make by Thomas Martin one of the executor of Peter neve who swear  that on the death of Peter neve in he find in his study old Mr neve settlement  of and a copy of his will and several purchase deed attest by old Mr Norris  which have be in the deponent custody ever since till he deliver they to the  appellant Matthew grave in may and November last and that the brown appellant  never see they before that he know not of the suit in and till June last and  in answer to a affidavit of his be solicitor in these cause for the appellant  Isabel and Edward and his wife and Roger and his wife and that he be attorney  also for they in the defence of the ejectment Martin swear that he be attorney  for the appellant in the ejectment but be not concern as solicitor on the  defence set up by they in this suit that he never see the bill of revivor in  nor the answer or copy have several meeting with the respondent father  solicitor and act for the appellant under the direction of the party or some  of they or of haver or Bowyear who have the sole conduct of the cause for the  appellant but that he be not concern as solicitor otherwise than as aforesaid  the other affidavit be chief make by the appellant who swear that they know  not of the write in Martin hand till he deliver they to the appellant grave as  aforesaid nor of the suit in and the appellant grave swear that after Martin  have deliver he the say write he observe upon one of they the title of a cause  neve by guardian plaintiff against neve defendant he find at the tower the  record in that cause and in the other of neve against Norris but brown er p  not the blacksmith answer or any deposition the appellant also read the letter  of the d of April before mention to Francis neve from Norris for the infant  respondent the affidavit of Jeremy Harcourt be read who swear that at the  trial of the ejectment in Thomas Martin act as attorney for the appellant the  then defendant and that this deponent prove copy of the bill in and the  blacksmith answer which be then read as evidence that Martin be concern as  solicitor in this cause for the appellant in may when a commission be go to be  execute to examine witness de bene be and that Mr lock attend as commissioner  for the appellant a agreement be also read sign by Snell the respondent father  attorney and Martin as attorney for the appellant about the trial of the  ejectment another agreement date the that of April whereby Martin promise to  engage lock to attend the commission and Martin letter to Snell of the that of  may wherein he say we be not prepare to join in commission next week the  affidavit of one Francis Saul who swear that he serve the appellant clerk in  court personal with the order of the saint of February that the respondent at  the hear of this cause may read copy of the bill answer and deposition take in  and a affidavit of one John monk set forth the infant respondent pedigree and  that the deponent believe he to be heir at law of the blacksmith and upon read  the settlement and will in the blacksmith conveyance and the bill answer and  deposition in and and several purchase deed of old neve attest by brown Norris  and the verdict in ejectment and after three day hear of counsel it be order  that the petition shall be dismiss from this order of dismission the  petitioner appeal and on their behalf it be argue W Murray W Noel that the  conveyance to old John Norris by John neve the blacksmith of his right to the  land comprise in the settlement of from all the circumstance under which it be  obtain and conceal ought in a court of equity to be deem a trust for Oliver  neve the young it be most manifest that the whole transaction be a unjust and  fraudulent scheme on the part of old Norris abuse the confidence of old Oliver  neve who have for many year employ he as his family lawyer by turn the  knowledge he thereby acquire of the affair and pedigree of the family to his  own advantage abuse the trust repose in he by the will in breach of the duty  he owe the infant Oliver who be incapable of act for himself and for who  Norris be a trustee and by mean thereof at that time in possession of the  whole estate and all the family deed and paper and for who interest he promise  to do everything in his power and thereby induce the friend of the infant to  rely entire on he while he be private acquire to himself the inheritance of  the infant estate and use mean in the name and under colour of serve the  infant by fill a bill against John neve as heir of old Oliver to give strength  and countenance to the title of John neve the blacksmith as his heir and which  in fact have so far succeed that upon the trial of the ejectment in this very  contrivance be use as evidence of the blacksmith pedigree that it be  impossible to account for the silence of this bill and the answer of the  blacksmith as to this conveyance but from a consciousness in Norris that this  matter will not then bear be divulge and in hope that if the whole conduct of  the infant affair be leave to his management he may by long concealment and  artful contrivance ripen a purchase original find in fraud and a gross breach  of trust into a good title and with the same view he detain one part of the  original settlement and several other material deed and evidence which be in  fact produce by his descendant partly at the trial of the ejectment in and  partly upon execute the commission of partition although by his answer to the  bill file in he positive swear that he have deliver up all deed and write  belong to the estate except some old write in a chest that public convenience  which be a source of equity from whence many and various determination have be  draw require that such a purchase as this shall be hold to be a trust for  otherwise no family in England can be safe most gentleman of estate be oblige  while they live to let some country lawyer into the knowledge of their affair  and when they die person under this description be common leave guardian and  trustee and if they may be permit while act under such confidence and in such  capacity to purchase for the themselves brown er p any brown dormant title or  remote reversion of the estate of those family for who they be concern their  situation give they such opportunity as may prove to many too strong a  temptation to do that for their own benefit which a honest agent or trustee  ought to do for the benefit of the family and they will be induce to discover  title or reversion stand out for the sake of get they to their own use which  otherwise may never be know or be incapable of be prove and which therefore  they will be always able to pick up for mere trifle as in the present case  where a estate of pound a year have be get in consideration of pound as to the  objection that the appellant ancestor Oliver and Peter neve have long submit  to and acquiesce under this purchase as a fair one no argument can be draw  from any such acquiescence because old Norris industrious conceal to the time  of his death have obtain any conveyance from neve the blacksmith though call  upon by the bill file in to discover what interest have come to he as well  touch the leasehold as the inheritance and suffer the family to believe that  the conveyance to Peter be valid from norris will it take air that he have  obtain some conveyance and Oliver first hear of it about but the descendant of  old Norris constant conceal the time when and the circumstance under which the  conveyance be make and Oliver have then a son near of age and he himself live  but two year after that Peter neve never know when or how this conveyance to  Norris be obtain and under that ignorance of the true state of the case treat  about its be produce and deliver up but always dispute it though he may not  think it prudent to commence a suit when it be uncertain whether the reversion  will ever take effect beside all the party to the transaction be dead before  it be pretend that either Oliver or Peter neve ever hear of any conveyance  have be obtain by old John Norris that the appellant defence in the cause be  very different from the equity now insist on the ground of that defence be  that Norris have be employ as a agent for Oliver or Peter neve to buy out the  blacksmith right have purchase it for himself and therefore ought to be  consider as a trustee for those who agent he be but the equity which the new  discover evidence support and verify be neither know or in issue in the cause  and if this evidence have be discover even before publication pass in that  cause yet it can not have be make use of at the hear to prove what be not put  in issue and this circumstance bring the case within the old rule of the court  relate to bill of review with supplemental matter and within a late rule  concern original bill in the nature of such bill of review and consequent  entitle the appellant to have the use and benefit of such evidence it have  however be object that the evidence now produce and insist on as a new  discovery and material to the merit of the case be not a new discovery but  either be or must be brown presume to have be know to the appellant themselves  or to their agent in who custody it appear to have be but to obviate any  objection of this nature the appellant themselves and also their agent have  positive swear that they be in fact ignorant of this evidence till long after  the former hear and decree and knowledge or notice be not in this case to be  presume but on the contrary there be much more reason to presume that the  appellant and their agent be ignorant of this evidence from its not have be  mention or make use of in the cause than there be to presume that they know of  it mere because part of it be in the custody of Martin who be never concern  for the appellant save only upon the trial of the ejectment and the execution  of the commission for examine witness de bene be in the country which be eight  year before the bill be file upon which the present decree be make and the  rather as this evidence happen to be in his custody not as a agent for the  appellant but in another capacity as executor of Peter neve beside the most  material part of this new discover evidence videlicet the blacksmith answer to  the bill file in and the bill file in together with the proceed thereon be not  pretend to have be in Martin custody at all or in any degree know either to  the appellant or their agent that a part of this new evidence happen  accidental to be in the hand of Martin not by any delivery from the appellant  but by mean of his be a executor of Peter neve be so far from be a  circumstance to induce a presumption of the appellant have notice of that  evidence and brown er p that therefore they ought to be preclude from have the  benefit of it now that there be instance where person stand in the same light  with the present appellant have be permit to have the use and benefit of  evidence as new discover although it appear to have be all along in the  custody of the party themselves and where its have be so in their custody be  not a sufficient reason from whence to presume that they know of that evidence  and may have make use of it before last that the whole of what the appellant  be now contend for be not a determination of the title to this estate in their  favour but only that the merit of their case as it stand on the new discover  evidence may once be which it have not yet be submit to the judgement of the  court and no danger of perjury or subornation of perjury can arise from admit  this evidence as it consist not of the testimony of witness but only of  authentic record and act of court or write instrument deed and letter under  the hand of old John Norris himself on the other side it be contend d rider I  brown that by the establish practice of the court there be but two sort of  bill of review one find on suppose error appear in the decree itself which be  not charge to be the present case the other on new matter as to this by the  know rule of Lord Bacon which have be constant adhere to no bill of review be  to be admit brown unless it contain some new matter which have arise in time  after the decree or upon new proof which can not have be use at the time when  the decree pass the latter part of this rule be what the appellant find their  application upon now in order to entitle themselves upon the foot of new proof  it must appear that this suppose new proof be unknown not only to the  appellant but to their attorney solicitor and agent for notice to they be by  the clear rule of the court consider as notice to the party themselves and  that it be also material to the relief pray but this be so far from be true  that all the deed letter paper and write now insist on as new matter come to  the hand of Thomas Martin one of the executor of Peter neve so late as when  Peter die and be now produce by he who be attorney and solicitor for the  appellant both in the ejectment and the bill in chancery in and and though the  fact of his be solicitor be endeavour to be deny yet it be full prove by write  under his own hand and the affidavit produce by the respondent as to the bill  file after norris purchase to perpetuate the testimony of the witness to the  will a copy of that bill and of the answer be actual read for the respondent  father at the trial of the ejectment in and the clerk in court for the  appellant be in February serve with a order to read they at the hear of this  cause below that all the fact allege by the appellant in their petition for a  bill of review be state in their cross bill file in and in their answer to the  respondent bill in and appear by the record of the court and be in issue at  the hear all the material proof of these fact be know to Oliver and Peter neve  long before the appellant have or can set up any claim and so long ago as a  year after the death of Francis neve one of the remaindermen without issue  Oliver be so well apprise of the right of the respondent grandfather that he  offer he pound to deliver up the blacksmith conveyance and soon after Oliver  death without male issue his brother Peter when in possession of the estate  and not likely to have any issue offer pound for the reversion though he have  get a conveyance of it to himself in fee for pound in may and which small sum  he probable think it worth while to give for a pretence to embarrass the  matter and dispute the reversion with norris family and even after this time  Peter make far overture by offer in to marry old norris daughter with a small  fortune and to deliver up his claim to the reversion if they can agree upon  term but during all these treaty no pretence be ever set up that Norris have  be guilty of any breach of trust as to the appellant ancestor or imposition on  the heir of old Oliver or that he be a trustee of this reversion for any of  they that there be but two piece of evidence mention in the appellant petition  which have not before be mention in any of the proceed one be a letter in  April from old Norris to Francis neve the appellant Isabel grandfather say  that brown he will perform the trust in the testator will commit to he which  letter must have be in the appellant family from the time of its date and the  other be that the brown er p appellant have find twenty deed of purchase make  by old neve and witness by old Norris but neither of these piece of evidence  be at all material to the point in question that the equity insist on by the  appellant be that Norris who be counsel for old neve and draw the settlement  and will purchase the reversion in fee to himself at a under value when he be  in possession of the estate under the trust term of ten year and that  therefore the purchase of this reversion ought to be construe as a purchase in  trust for Oliver Peter and Francis neve but in answer to this it must be  observe that Norris be only a trustee of this ten year term for payment of  debt and legacy with the surplus rend to Oliver if live or else to Peter if  live and if not then to Francis neve his executor or administrator that this  term be antecedent to all the limitation to Oliver Peter and Francis neve who  be only successive tenant for year if they so long live with several remainder  to their first and other son in tail male and that the remainder in fee be  neither limit or intend to go to any of they or to any issue which they may  have none of they have issue at that time but be limit to the right heir of  the grantor and be a separate and distinct interest which neither Oliver Peter  or Francis neve can claim by the course of the settlement beside it be  absolute impossible to say for which of the Neves Norris be a trustee whether  for Oliver the first taker or for Peter or Francis or their son or for all of  they joint or separate and in what proportion or whether in fee or in tail or  for life or whether altogether or in succession accord to their original  limitation and if in succession what shall become of the reversion in fee  again which still remain as it be before nor can there be any ground of trust  show for Oliver or Peter under who alone the appellant can claim but what will  hold equal and perhaps strong for Francis who be the near to the reversion but  under who the appellant can derive no right that the appellant have attempt to  resemble this case to the case of trustee renew term of year for their own  benefit but the case total differ not only in the respect beforementioned but  in this essential point that the equity on which those case all depend be the  suppose tenantright or expectation and the know usage of renewal which be  intend to be unite with and become part of the trust estate but here it be the  very reverse it be so far from the view of the grantor that the reversion  shall go to the particular precedent owner that his intent be to keep it out  of their hand and carry it into another channel as to the pretence of a  unequal consideration and the fraud suppose to arise from thence there be no  rule of computation by which this can be show to be too small and it be in  fact a brown great consideration than Peter himself give for a much near  reversion but whatever colour can be give for such a charge it can afford no  equity to the appellant unless it can be show that a fraud upon one man can  create a trust for another or that norris purchase the reversion at a under  value from the blacksmith make he a trustee not for the vendor of the  reversion but for the owner of the particular estate which precede it that it  be now above year since the purchase of this reversion by old Norris and if  the family of the Neves think there have be any fraud or breach of trust there  can be no doubt of their inclination and ability to make it appear and if  after such a long acquiescence the appellant be to be permit to bring a bill  in the nature of a bill of review it will create endless vexation and delay  from which the appellant will derive a very unjust advantage for after this  distance of time it will be impossible for the respondent who be the great  grandson of John Norris the purchaser to clear up many fact which may have be  easy prove and explain if dispute while the party to those transaction have be  live it be therefore hope that the order 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 order therein complain of affirm jour  vol p brown er p