case robert Rochfort appellant Ridgely nugent respondent that may Mews dig xiv  a purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice of a old settlement  shall not be affect by that settlement especial if it appear to have be  voluntary and not make in pursuance of article evidence not read in the court  of equity below allow to bet read on the appeal before the house of lord the  deposition of a person concern in interest not allow to be read decree of the  Irish chancery reverse the effect of the determination be thus state in the ms  table and thence copy into vin Abr and Eq ab purchaser for a valuable  consideration without notice shall not be impeach especial where a settlement  have be since make in his favour brown er p viner vol p can Eq can ab can  Walter nugent of Portlomon Esq be seize in fee of the land of Portlomon  Frewinmore Frewinbegg Grangegeeth balrath Monroe and BallyEdwards by indenture  of lease and release date the saint and d of may in consideration of pound  convey the land of BallyEdwards to Leonard Hatfleld and his heir and he soon  afterward suffer a common recovery on the saint of may the say Walter nugent  assign part of the say land to mrs Katherine Salisbury his father widow for  her dower in January Walter nugent for a valuable consideration convey the  land of Monroe to the say Leonard Hatfield and his heir and in October follow  he demise the land of Portlomon Frewinmore and Frewinbegg to one Walter nugent  a attorney for year at the yearly rend of pound for so many year of the term  as the say Katherine Salisbury shall live and pound per and for the residue by  indenture of lease and release date the that and that of October Mr nugent in  consideration of pound convey the reversion of all the say land of Portlomon  Frewinmore Frewinbegg Grangegeeth and balrath to the say Leonard Hatfield and  his heir in march Leonard Hatfield by lease and release and fine in  consideration of pound convey all the say land to the appellant and his  heirs In November follow John Salisbury and Katherine his wife in  consideration of pound and of pound per and during Katherine life convey the  land assign for her dower to the appellant and his heirs And soon afterward  Walter nugent the attorney in consideration of pound assign the above lease in  trust for the appellant brown Walter nugent of Portlomon be afterward outlaw  for high treason and upon his death in the respondent as his son and heir  exhibit his claim to all the say land before the trustee of the Irish  forfeiture and thereupon the appellant exhibit a counter claim on the that of  January both these claim be hear when the trustee decree that as the appellant  have produce and prove the several deed and conveyance above state and the  payment of the consideration money he appear to be lawful and rightful seize  of and entitle to all the say land to he and his heir for ever and therefore  they dismiss the claim make by the respondent and decree that fly say land  shall be hold and enjoy by the appellant and his heir by a act of parliament  make in England that and that William entitle a act for grant a aid to his  majesty by sale of the forfeit and other estate and interest in Ireland it be  among other thing enact that if such claim shall not be allow by the say  trustee or any seven or more of they the party claim his heir executor  administrator or assign or any claim by from or under they shall be for ever  debar and without remedy and if the party claimant shall upon hear any claim  prove the same by good and sufficient proof upon oath or otherwise as the  nature of the case shall require to the satisfaction of the say trustee or any  seven or more of they the say trustee or any seven or more of they be require  to allow such claim and every judgement determination or decree which the say  trustee or any seven or more of they shall maker shall be final and conclude  and bind all and every person and person their heir successor executor  administrator and assign notwithstanding any disability of coverture infancy  non sanity or other matter or thing whatsoever and all person shall be bind  and conclude by such judgement determination or decree any law statute or  custom or other matter or thing to the contrary notwithstanding the appellant  be thus seize of the premise and have be in possession thereof for upward of  nine year he in January in consideration of a marriage between George Rochfort  Esq his old son and heir and the lady Elizabeth more one of the daughter of  the earl of Drogheda and of pound her marriage portion settle all the say land  immediate after his own death upon the say George his son and the issue of  that marriage and he afterward levy a fine sur conuzance de law come Ceo  etcetera with proclamation to the use of the marriage settlement but in  Trinity term the respondent think proper to exhibit his bill in the brown er p  court of chancery in Ireland against the appellant and the say Leonard  Hatfield state that by virtue of a settlement of the that of may the say  Walter nugent his late father be tenant in tail of the premise and that upon  brown his marriage with Abigail Hatfield he make a settlement thereof by  indenture of lease and release date the that and that of may whereby the same  be limit to himself for life with remainder to the respondent that Hatfield  have notice of this settlement and obtain his conveyance by fraud and  therefore the bill pray that those conveyance and also the deed execute to the  appellant may be set aside and that the plaintiff may be let into possession  to this bill the appellant put in a plea and answer by his plea he state the  several deed and fine and other matter above mention under which he derive his  title and by his answer he deny any notice of the settlement under which the  plaintiff claim this plea be overrule and on the that and that of may the  cause be hear when the court decree that the appellant shall convey and  procure those claim under he to convey the premise to the respondent that a  injunction shall issue to put he into possession and that the appellant shall  account for the rend and profit as to so much as be in jointure to mrs  Salisbury and in lease to Walter nugent the attorney from the time that their  respective right determine and as to the residue from the time of his purchase  from this decree the appellant immediate send over his petition of appeal to  England but the respondent have get the decree pass by surprise and before  their lordship order on the petition be return the appellant in order to save  his possession apply for a re hear of the cause and accord on the that of June  the same be re hear by the Lord chancellor assist by both the chief justice  the chief baron and all the other judge then in Ireland when they be please  unanimous to affirm the former decree in consequence whereof a injunction be  immediate issue and notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal the appellant  be strip of his possession in support of this appeal it be say S Cowper c  Phipps that the deposition of Walter nugent the attorney who be a party  interest by have a remainder in the land in question under the settlement set  up by the respondent be read against the appellant and yet the answer of this  same Walter wherein he confess his title to the estate be not suffer to be  read for the appellant that the answer of Walter nugent the respondent father  to a bill file in the court of exchequer in the year be not suffer to be read  for the appellant although the answer of Walter nugent the attorney who be a  party in the same cause be read against the appellant whereas it be more  agreeable to justice and the rule of equity that the answer of the respondent  father under who he derive title shall be read against the respondent than  that the answer of Walter nugent the attorney shall be read against the  appellant who do not derive under he that it be deny by the appellant in his  answer and not prove in the cause that he have notice before his brown  purchase of the respondent pretend settlement of which upon the face of it  appear to be a voluntary deed make after marriage and it be not so much as  pretend by the bill that there be any article or agreement before marriage  that the appellant be a purchaser for the valuable consideration before state  which amount to the full value of the land at the time they be so purchase  that if the respondent have any title it be a legal one for which he have a  legal remedy and therefore he ought not to have be relieve by a court of  equity nor ought the appellant to have be decree to account until the  respondent have establish his title at law the print case on the part of the  respondent r Raymond n Lechinere contain no reason in support of the decree  but conclude with hope that after the appellant pretention have be so solemnly  hear and determine their lordship will see just cause for affirm the decree  and dismiss so vexatious a appeal with full cost at the hear of this appeal on  the that of may jour vol p the appellant counsel produce a common recovery  suffer by Walter nugent of Portlomon esquire in easter term which be read they  offer to read deed of lease and release declare the use of that recovery but  the counsel for the brown er p respondent oppose the read thereof allege that  the same be not read in the court below whereupon the counsel be direct to  withdraw and a debate arise in relation to this matter the question be put  whether the say deed of lease and release shall be permit to be read and  resolve in the affirmative the counsel be then call in and acquaint with the  opinion of the house the say deed be accord read as also several proof in the  cause and the appellant counsel have be full hear and the counsel for the  respondent beginning to plead in answer thereto they be direct to withdraw and  be withdraw it be order that the house will proceed to the further hear of the  cause tomorrow morning accord on the next day journ vol p the respondent  counsel proceed and desire that the answer of Walter nugent the attorney may  be read it be object to by the appellant counsel the same not have be read in  the court below whereupon they be direct to withdraw and be withdraw a debate  arise and the question be put whether the answer of the say Walter nugent to  prove the identity of the person mention in the settlement make by Walter  nugent of Portlonion esquire in the year be permit to be read it be resolve in  the affirmative the counsel be then call in and acquaint with the opinion of  the house that the say answer may be read the same be read accord then it be  propose by the respondent counsel that the deposition of the say Walter nugent  the attorney may be read and the same be likewise object to by the appellant  counsel he be concern in interest they be direct to withdraw and be withdraw  accord the question be put whether the deposition of the say brown Walter  nugent shall be read and be resolve in the negative then the counsel be again  call in and acquaint with the opinion of the house that the deposition of the  say Walter nugent shall not be read he be concern in interest the respondent  counsel then desire that the answer of the say Walter nugent may be read in  evidence against another defendant Leonard Hatfield which be oppose by the  appellant counsel they be direct to withdraw and be withdraw accord the  question be put whether the answer of the say Walter nugent shall be read in  evidence and be resolve in the negative the counsel be then call in again and  acquaint with the opinion of the house that the say answer shall not be read  proceed to read some proof in the cause on behalf of the respondent and the  appellant counsel have reply it be order and adjudge that the several order  and decree of the court of chancery in Ireland complain of in the appeal as  also the order of the say court make upon rehear the cause affirm the say  decree shall be reverse and that the respondent bill shall stand dismiss and  that the say court of chancery shall cause possession of the estate in  question to be restore to the appellant and that the mesne profit of the same  if any have be receive under the say decree shall be account for and pay to  the appellant but the respondent be at liberty to proceed at law as he shall  be advice