case edward Edgeworth appellant robert Edgeworth respondent that June where a  person derive title under a dormant settlement all the remainderman in that  settlement as well as all mesne encumbrancer on the estate must be make party  to the suit ORDERS of the Irish court of exchequer reverse see note to case  viner vol p can Eq can ab can sir Edward Terrell bart be seize in fee of the  town and land of Longwood and several other land in the county of meath  WestMeath Kildare and king county in Ireland die in the year leave issue  Catherine his only daughter and heir the appellant mother the say sir Edward  Terrell be after his death outlaw for high treason by mean whereof the say  land which will otherwise have come to Catherine his say daughter and heir be  seize into the hand of their majesty king William and queen mary but there be  a prospect of reverse that outlawry as be erroneous the respondent propose to  marry the say Catherine and have obtain the consent of dame Elinor Terrell her  mother certain article be enter into between the respondent of the one part  and the say dame Elinor Terrell on behalf of herself and her say daughter  Catherine of the other part date the that of July whereby it be agree that  whenever the say Catherine or the respondent in her right shall be restore to  the estate of the say sir Edward Terrell or any part thereof brown the same  shall immediate be settle on the respondent and the say Catherine for their  life and the life of the long liver of they remainder in tail male to the  first son of the respondent by the say Catherine with other remainder over and  that there shall be a provision for the say dame Elinor during her life the  marriage soon afterward take effect and sir Edward estate be by the act of  resumption vest in the trustee appoint for sale of the Irish forfeiture it be  afterward by a private act of parliament make in the first year of queen  whether enact that the say trustee shall convey all the estate forfeit by the  say sir Edward Terrell to the respondent and the say Catherine and their heir  discharge of all forfeiture and by deed of lease and release date the that and  that of October the say trustee convey the same accord the respondent and  Catherine be thus seize do by deed of lease and release date the that and that  of December in pursuance of the say article and for the consideration therein  mention convey unto Francis Edgeworth esquire and his heir all the say premise  by the particular denomination in the say deed express to the use of the  respondent and the say Catherine for their life without impeachment of waste  and from and after the death of the say respondent and Catherine to the use of  the appellant their old son during his natural life remainder to the say  Francis and his heir for preserve the contingent use remainder to the  appellant first and other son in tail male with several remainder over with a  power for the respondent and the say Catherine to charge portion for young  child not exceed pound and a power for the appellant after the death of the  respondent and the say Catherine to settle a jointure on any wife he shall  marry not exceed pound per and in the say Catherine die and the respondent in  some few month after marry a second wife and notwithstanding the say article  and settlement take upon himself to make feefarms and other long lease of part  of the premise at small rend and to mortgage and sell other part thereof and  public notify that he intend to sell the residue of the say premise by these  mean and also on account of the appellant marry against the respondent consent  great misunderstand subsist between they insomuch that on the saint of  December the respondent exhibit his bill in the court of exchequer in Ireland  against the appellant allege that neither he the respondent or the say  Catherine ever make or execute any article before their intermarriage brown er  p or any settlement of the say premise and therefore pray that if the  appellant do insist on any article and settlement he may be oblige to show  cause why the same shall not be bring into court and lacerate brown to this  bill the appellant put in his answer and thereby insist that the respondent  and the say Catherine be but tenant for their respective life with remainder  to the appellant for life with several remainder over as aforesaid and that  the respondent and the say Catherine or either of they have not any power to  sell or encumber the premise or any part thereof any long than during their  respective life the cause be at issue witness be examine on both side and on  the part of the appellant the reality of the article and settlement be not  only prove by a live subscribe witness to the article who be halfsister to the  say Catherine and examine on behalf of the respondent himself but also  manifest by many other concur evidence such as the confession of the  respondent recital in several deed execute by he and Catherine some whereof be  of his own handwriting endorsement write by the respondent on the back of the  article and on another parchment which contain the say article and settlement  mention the same to be paper and deed of value several letter write by the  respondent and the say Catherine some whereof have be exhibit in a cause  depend in the say court of exchequer in the year wherein Bryan Kernan and his  wife be plaintiff and the respondent and his wife be defendant as appear by  the deposition and certificate of Mr Garstin the examiner it also appear in  proof that the respondent attempt to destroy the say article and settlement  and that the appellant mother have prevent the same the respondent use harsh  method in order to compel her to join with he therein and in sale and mortgage  of part of the say premise and one Constantine Molloy former clerk to the  attorney who be concern for the respondent in the management of his affair  prove that the say deed of settlement be all of the say Molloys own  handwriting and be write by he on or about the time they bear date by the  direction of the respondent say attorney on the part of the respondent it be  prove that the person pretend to be the live witness to the marriagearticle  have frequent declare on the appellant first make his pretention that she  never be a witness to any such article nor do she believe any settlement be  ever make and that she be well assure the lady Terrell never after the death  of her husband be able to maintain herself without the respondent assistance  that the other pretend witness to the article who be dead hold no  correspondence with lady Terrell or the respondent or his wife at or near the  time when he be suppose to have be a witness to the article that Francis  Edgeworth the only trustee name in the settlement be at great variance with  the respondent at and both before and after the date of that settlement and be  not at Longwood where the settlement be pretend to have be execute at or near  that time that both the article and settlement appear to be of one and the  same handwriting with brown eight letter prove to have be write by the  appellant that from many declaration make by the respondent and his late wife  the appellant mother and even by the appellant own witness at several time in  the year and afterward it appear that no such pretend settlement be ever make  and that the appellant have often write the respondent name so like his hand  that it can not be distinguish from his own write on the that and that of  November the cause be hear when on read part of the appellant proof the Lord  chief baron declare that the appellant have make sufficient proof of the  reality of the article and settlement and that as this case be circumstance it  will be a dangerous precedent to direct a issue to try the reality of they but  it be nevertheless order that the appellant shall be examine on personal  interrogatory in relation to the say deed article letter and exhibit read on  that hear in pursuance of this order the appellant be personal examine on  interrogatory exhibit to he by the respondent and the cause come again to be  hear on such examination as well as on the plead and proof on the that of  February the Lord chief baron then declare his opinion that the respondent be  only tenant for life under the say article with remainder to the appellant and  brown er p no purchaser be before the court no more can be regular do than to  put the deed into safe hand however it be order that the cause shall stand  over and that the respondent shall in the mean time make all the tenant in  possession and all the encumbrancer and purchaser derive under he party to the  bill on the that of may upon the respondent motion and in the absence of the  Lord chief baron it be order that such only of the tenant as have lease exceed  year in possession or reversion on the that of February shall be make party to  the bill notwithstanding it be urge by the appellant counsel that the  aforesaid order be make on a hear that it can not be alter on a motion without  a rehear and that the respondent may have make lease for year before and since  the that of February contrary to the power reserve to he by the article and  settlement the respondent accord amend his bill but immediate obtain a order  in the absence of the Lord chief baron for set down the cause to be further  hear without bring any of the purchaser or encumbrancer before the court on  the that of November the cause be accord hear before Mr baron Pocklington and  Mr baron saint leger in the absence of the Lord chief baron and upon read  several of the appellant proof the court be please to order a trial at law on  the follow issue videlicet whether the article bear date the that day of July  be perfect by the respondent and Elinor Terrell previous to the intermarriage  of the respondent brown and the say Catherine or at any other and what time  and whether the deed of lease and release bear date the that and that day of  December be perfect by Catherine Edgeworth Francis Edgeworth and the  respondent at Longwood in the county of meath on the day they several bear  date or at any other and what time the appellant on the d of February follow  apply to the court that the several proof and letter read in the cause may be  duly enter in the note in pursuance of a former order but Mr baron saint leger  in the absence of the Lord chief baron be please to declare that the order for  have the letter enter as read be make on a further hear and that be no  ingredient on the hear and therefore not only refuse the motion but at the  same time order the issue to be take as find against the appellant  notwithstanding the appellant counsel urge that a hear and further hear be but  as one hear and that the say proof and exhibit be admit and read as evidence  in the cause before the Lord chief baron and that there can be no objection to  they and on the same day the court be please to refuse that the several  exhibit which be prove viva voice at the hear of the cause may be mark and  sign by the officer to show that the same be prove and read the appellant  therefore appeal from these several order of the that of may that of November  and d of February insist t Lutwyche S mead that the bill ought not to have be  retain or countenance in a court of equity unless the charge have be support  by some evidence sufficient to find a decree upon or at least to induce a  suspicion but the respondent have fail therein and not have suggest any matter  proper for the cognizance of a court of equity his bill ought to have be  dismiss with cost that it be apprehend the appellant have make out his case so  clear that there be no ground or foundation for direct any issue nor any room  leave for the court to conceive or entertain the least doubt that the several  encumbrancer and purchaser claim under the respondent be not bring before the  court accord to the order of the that of February and that of may neither be  the person who appear to be entitle to estate in remainder by virtue of the  say article and settlement make party to the suit without which no trial or  decree can be effectual available or conclusive that the issue be so word as  to leave room for a jury to find against the appellant although the reality of  the article and settlement have be ever so well prove for the issue be to try  whether the deed of lease and release of the that and that of December be  perfect by Francis Edgeworth Catherine Edgeworth and the respondent at  Longwood in the county of meath when it appear that the subscribe witness to  those deed be dead so that it be impossible to give any evidence of the place  where they be execute beside it be altogether brown er p immaterial to make  the place brown any part of the issue and there be still the less reason for  do so as this case be circumstance because the respondent house at Longwood  happen to be situate in two county one part thereof be in the county of meath  and the other in the county of Kildare that the court on the d of February not  only refuse to admit some of the appellant proof read in the cause to be  regular enter in the minute but at the same time order the issue to be take as  find against he though no declaration have be file or deliver by the  respondent and though these issue be direct in a improper manner and without  any foundation that the denial of the appellant motion for oblige the officer  to mark the exhibit to show that they be read in the cause be apprehend to be  a practice of very dangerous tendency and such as if tolerate in inferior  court may prevent person from appeal against their order or decree or show  their grievance in a full and clear light and therefore it be hope that the  say order will be reverse and the respondent bill dismiss with cost on the  other side it be contend c Phipps t Bootle that the order of the that of may  direct the lessee of the premise in question to be make party be a favour to  the appellant to the end that they may be affect with notice of the article  and settlement in case the same can be establish and that direct issue to try  the validity thereof will be establish by a judgement at law a right in the  appellant which otherwise he can not bring in issue till after the respondent  death that the last order of the d of February be likewise just as the  appellant by refuse to try the point in question upon the issue direct tacit  own that he can not support either the article or settlement and therefore it  be but reasonable that the respondent title shall be quiet that from the  nature of the respondent proof as well as from the variation in the matter and  power contain in the pretend article and settlement it be evident that neither  of they be duly make or execute or at least that they lie under the great  suspicion of be forge that the purchaser lessee and mortgagee be all make  party and serve with subpoena and appear before the issue be direct and as to  the make the remainderman party the appellant be overrule by the court and  acquiesce till the fill of his appeal beside in case the settlement shall be  find to be valid the remainderman will have the benefit of it though they be  no party to the suit that Longwood be rely upon by the appellant in his plead  to be the place at which the indenture of lease and release be execute and for  that reason as presume it be insert in the issue but if the appellant have  complain to the court of that circumstance it will no doubt heaven be leave at  large for the respondent never insist further than to have the validity of the  article and settlement fair put in issue after hear counsel on this appeal it  be order and adjudge that the say three order complain of shall be brown  reverse and that the respondent shall be at liberty to bring on the cause  again to hear in the say court of exchequer as he shall be advice make proper  party to the suit and that the say court shall take care that he proceed  without any unnecessary delay jour vol