can in Charles see Ves sen a sequestration prevail against a prior conveyance  design to defeat it not against prior conveyance for valuable consideration or  good fide after a decree against the father and a report of pound due confirm  and just before a sequestration award the father convey pound of land to his  son which be his whole estate without reserve any maintenance to himself or  any visible trust appear the consideration express be these to enable the son  swanston er p to make a jointure to a wife who bring pound portion and be  marry month after to pay the father debt videlicet pound on a mortgage and  pound more in other debt this conveyance the son plead in bar of the  sequestration and if the son be either a purchaser or come in voluntary and  good fide the plea be good against the consideration of this deed it be argue  the marriage settlement be but a pretence for the deed be only between father  and son the wife friend no party also this conveyance not necessary to enable  the son to make a jointure for the father be seize in fee can have do it  without this and beside the settlement be strange and very suspicious for the  father strip himself of all and give the son the portion too the payment of  debt be but a pretence neither for the pound upon the mortgage need no other  provision and the other pound be voluntary debt create for this purpose at  last the defence be make barefaced and the defendant retreat to this point  that the sequestration bind not the land till lie on at least not till the  order make and it be lawful to prevent a sequestration by a conveyance make  for that purpose before the date of he order as at commonlaw a man may make a  conveyance to prevent a outlawry and this point strike home indeed ergo it be  fit to settle this point once for all without make use of any shift or evasion  or strain the case to make a presumptive fraud or result trust though there be  ground enough for that too I will ergo at this time for learning sake and for  use enlarge myself a little upon the nature of sequestrations in chancery the  judge of the commonlaw have be so very unwilling to support any proceed in  equity that they have come to very strange resolution Elizabeth b Brograve v  Watts cro a sequestration of good award by the court of request adjudge no bar  in detinue m car b b bill v Heber adjudge on argument no bar in trover Nov  James b b Elwats case upon a indictment of murder for kill a sequestrator the  court incline that he be no such legal officer that it shall be malice imply  to kill he which be a bloody opinion but the prisoner dare not trust to that  opinion but sue out his pardon note at that time bishop Lincoln be custos this  be not the first time that the judge have endeavour by several resolution to  depress the chancery and yet after judge have be ashamed of those resolution e  he who have notice of a trust and then procure a release from the trustee can  be question in equity pron  interrog  opposite direction yes be e roll he that  pay a statute or a bind without a acquittance shall have no relief in equity  if he be sue again what can be more absurd Tr James Shelley v shoot sir f moor  Selby v Chute more it be hold that a suit in equity be no breach of a covenant  not to sue because the law take no notice of a suit in equity but car chess in  Lord saint Alban case mich hale chief baron just deny this case James b b  Glascock v Rowly roll roll Rep Bulstr there ought to be no relief in equity  against a entry for a condition break laughter to hold James b b Fynn v smith  I roll roll Rep if one joint tenant take all the profit there be no relief in  equity durus sermon James b r Powell v Harris I roll roll Rep No account can  be require of executor in equity against all experience James b b Bromage v  jenning I roll roll Rep where damage may be recover in a action upon the case  there shall be no relief in equity to compel the performance in specie car b b  miller and Beamess case there shall be no relief in equity when the bind be  lose l roll these extravagant opinion no man will own no more than the explode  opinion that to sue in chancery after judgement be a praemunire as the judge  do of themselves reform these opinion when they see the inconvenience of they  and how little they prevail against the chancery so they have since begin to  relent even in the matter of sequestration Tr car c b sergeant Bacon move for  a prohibition to the court of request for grant a sequestration against the  land and because the sequestration be of other land than those which be in  demand the prohibition be grant march Rep pl this admit that of the thing in  demand a sequestration may be and go as far as ever my Lord Bacon rule go  order in chancery Edward beam p et seq per bank chief justice and this be  warrant by the reason of law for every court baron may have a to lift up  facias only there it be renew from time to time whereas a sequestration  continue to lift up and it be hard to deny the chancery the power of a court  be a swanston er p baron so that by this time it be become a settle point that  sequestrations may be and of the thing not in demand videlicet of land for a  personal duty nay of a copyhold too and this without doubt be much ancient  than the precedent see the marquis of carmarthen v Hawson swan for the record  of the proceed in equity have not be so careful keep the old precedent in  chancery of a sequestration be about Elizabeth but in the county palatine of  Chester there be precedent as ancient as mark note Tothill mention a case of  knightly V grant Elizabeth transaction and indeed no court of equity can  subsist without this process nor be it any great severity to find out a way to  make man pay their debt effectual in the next place it must be observe that  sequestration be not like any process at commonlaw nor be it award in  imitation of any of those process for first it be not like a to lift up facias  which cease by the death of the party it be not like the outlawry where the  profit be seize for the contempt but do not necessary go in satisfaction of  the debt it be not like a execution upon the statute Westminster or a extent  for though a injunction for the possession be like a liberate yet it cover the  whole and reach copyhold land which no extent do so that it be a special  remedy warrant by the course of the court and stand only upon its own rule it  remain ergo to consider the bind and limit of it and first we may be sure that  this be the process of a court of equity be never to issue out against the  rule of good conscience ergo a purchaser for a valuable consideration before  the sequestration be free for though a decree as to some purpose be equal with  a judgement yet it be never so till a sequestration award for till then  neither land nor good be bind so be he free who come in voluntary and good  fide for the very same reason after a sequestration lie on against the father  if he die and the land descend to the issue in tail the sequestration be  discharge so rule that July earl Athol v commit Derby can in Charles lie but  whether it continue against the feesimple land be not then debate it have be  say that there be as much reason to continue a sequestration against the heir  in fee as to put the party to a new sequestration after revivor but I conceive  that the sequestration do not continue until the suit revive against the heir  and also against the executor who may have asset no not though the son come in  and be examine in his father lifetime and set out his title by conveyance for  after his father death a new title accrue to he as heir but after revivor the  sequestration will bind he as much as it do in his father lifetime and this be  one of the point in Bland and withams case swan see the marquis of carmarthen  v Hawson swan the only difficulty be the point in question how far a voluntary  conveyance to the heir on purpose to prevent and avoid a sequestration  approach shall take place and this ought to be no difficulty neither for  reason and authority be against it No such conveyance can be good fide which  be make with a intent to avoid a just debt it tend to make all proceed here  illusory it teach a art of cheat for a man may borrow money to buy land and be  sue in chancery for the money he may after a decree make a voluntary  conveyance to the heir and defeat the remedy Bland and withams case be a  authority in point swan bird v Littlehales swan Hamblyn v lee swan for that  march it be debate before the earl Shaftsbury chancellor whether the  sequestration can be continue against the son after revivor but that November  I do allow the sequestration to proceed afterward Witham depart from the title  he have make pendent light and set up a former settlement in upon which that  December I deliver my opinion against he he desire a case to be make but never  argue it that may car Langley v Bredon decree for pound sequestration award  the defendant plead a voluntary conveyance before the sequestration award yet  order to answer Lord nottingham ms Lord Pelham v duchess of Newcastle swanston  n er Lord Pelham v duchess of Newcastle the circumstance of the case appear in  the report bro PC a defendant order to deliver a copy of a deed and refer to  it in her answer as a true copy the master report the answer insufficient for  not set forth the deed that declare the use of the fine and recovery that be  levy and suffer by the duke and duchess of the Newcastle estate and upon the  general exception to the report swanston er p sir Thomas powis for the duchess  insist as the defendant do by her answer insist on the very same matter in bar  of the discovery of this deed that have be before plead and overrule with this  further that the intention for the preserve the estate in the name of  Cavendish be continue to the make the deed and a clause in the deed that  provide for it be set forth in the answer that what be pray by the bill to  have the deed set forth in haec word be worse than deliver it over to the  plaintiff for that will discover it to all the world that the duchess have a  estate for life limit to her by that deed and that the duke have agree in  consideration of her join in that settlement that her estate for life shall be  protect from the encumbrance which amount to pound and affect that estate she  be a purchaser of the benefit of those encumbrance and that those in cumbrance  be recite in the deed the discovery may endanger her estate for life that the  plaintiff be not entitle to that discovery be a infant and not capable of  confirm her estate for life and not have prove the will and establish the  title at law on the last head he cite the case of dr Hamilton and Mr Fleetwood  that Hamilton claim under the remainder man in fee and the estate tail be send  to all but one person who be under a incapacity the doctor bring a ejectment  and after he have proceed so far as that he get a special verdict he bring his  bill for discovery of deed and write and to stay waste that upon exception to  a report of the insufficiency of fleetwood answer the court will not oblige  Fleetwood to answer because the doctor have not affirm his title at law vin ab  he cite likewise Whitcombes case Whitcombe v Whitcombe Prec in Charles which  be a man leave two daughter by a first wife and the second wife ensient with a  son who live a ear and the uncle as heir to he bring a ejectment but be  nonsuit by term be set up by the daughter he then bring his bill for a  discovery of deed and particular of the lease of the estate to enable he to  prove a possession in the infant and upon exception to a report of the  insufficiency of to answer for not set they forth the report be overrule and  at hear Lord Cowper will not compel the defendant to discover and declare that  this court will not in all case help a person to deed that he have a right to  at law that it will not help a first purchaser against a second without notice  nor where there be a very hard bargain make between two will it help the  person that will take a advantage of it to enable he to do so at law and that  the present case be much strong than come here for a discovery before the hear  note Whitcombes case be say to have be a case of great compassion and to have  be compound at last and Lord keeper seem to think that decree wrong Hooper  insist that the duchess be a purchaser and that the duke be not entitle to  production without confirmation and that in the case of sir coplestone  Bunfield a jointress subsequent to a marriage be not compel to discover nor in  the case of book v book where the deed comprise both the jointure and other  land Cheshire a right to discovery be not substantive but dependent on a right  at law which the plaintiff ought to establish first and they have room enough  to try the validity of the will without discover of the deed William put the  case that where cony be titheable by custom and a bill be bring to discover  the quantity and value if the defendant deny the custom he will not be oblige  to set forth the quantity c Lord keeper that be matter of account in this case  you say there be encumbrance how shall the plaintiff be able to try his right  Cheshire the court may direct a issue devisavit well non Peat we be a  purchaser though not of our estate for life which be part of a old estate yet  of the encumbrance Lord Pelham have no right we have deny the will and his  title and it must be take now on our answer and your lordship will not on a  feign suggestion oblige we to make any discovery our plea be overrule because  the matter be not then full discover to the court it be now have disclose in  our answer the clause in the deed that relate to that matter if the word that  direct the take the name of Cavendish be not find enough to make either a  condition or limitation there be the great reason that it shall enure as a  trust continue a estate in a name and family have be regard in all age that be  the reason of make the statute swanston er p dr Denis OWilliams if a plea be  overrule for any mistake the plaintiff may insist on the same matter by way of  answer sir I Jekyll say inter alian that it can not be a trust there be no  obligation on the duchess to take the name and therefore no trustee make by  the deed nor beneficiary and trust attorney general the duchess fear of the  encumbrance be groundless she admit by her answer that they be all assign in  trust for the duke before the deed of settlement and that there be a proviso  in that deed that they shall be assign to protect the several limitation of  that deed which agreement how say be as effectual in equity as if they have be  actual assign pursuant to the proviso Vernon Two dilatories be never to be  allow by the print rule of the court and therefore a man can plead twice or  demurrer twice nor where a plea in bar be overrule can he insist upon the same  thing by way of answer unless it be overrule for informality only and not for  the matter which it be here it be true they have throw in some additional  circumstance but if that contrivance will avail they may do so in infinitum  what be say by the court before on their plea videlicet if there be such a  trust c the discovery will not hurt they and if there be not the conceal the  deed be a manifest injury to the plaintiff and that without a discovery of the  deed it can not be bring before the court in judgement whether there be or not  be unanswerable and the plaintiff do not claim paramount the duchess and seek  only a discovery of her own act he never hear it say that a purchaser be not  compellable to disclose his own title nor that advantage may not be take of  any clause in the purchase deed Cooper it be not possible for the plaintiff to  go to law without a discovery of the deed not even upon the issue devisavit  well non for if it be not in the duke he can not devise it and that be the  only deed that bring the estate unto he how the apprehension of danger of any  stranger take advantage of the discovery that be pray be expel in Lord craven  case and if there be any real danger of let in any encumbrance of other person  by it it ought to be particular insist on by answer there be no occasion here  for confirm the duchess estate for life she not be a purchaser of it and it be  create by the same deed under which the plaintiff claim and the duke have  confirm it by his will which be much more effectual than a bare offer to  confirm Lord keeper the duchess be say to be a purchaser and therefore not  compellable to discover she be no purchaser of any limitation in the deed  those limitation be rather the consideration of her purchase of the benefit of  the encumbrance of there be no reason of her be purchaser of they for her not  discover the use the deed which be another thing the bill do not seek a  discovery of the encumbrance but of a deed in which they be recite only your  fear of those be imaginary let her set it forth in haec word he afterward  propose to both side and they consent that instead of that she shall deliver a  copy of it and refer to it in her answer as a true copy note that nothing be  insist on by way of answer in bar of a discovery but what have be before plead  and overrule or allegation take out of the deed itself if they have be plead  the plea will not have be prove without produce the deed which when produce  the plaintiff may take advantage of it seem therefore vain to allege that in  bar of a discovery which can not be prove without give the discovery object  against from Mr Cox note Lord Colchesters ms Lord Pelham v duchess of  Newcastle