case george Mackenzie appellant marquis of powis and another respondent saint  march where property be deposit on the undertake of three person joint and  several to return the same and two of they be abroad out of the jurisdiction  of the court the one remain shall be answerable on the undertake to the amount  of the full damage sustain by the depositor in what case a court of equity  will restrain a man from plead the statute of limitation to a action at law a  court of equity will not ascertain the amount of damage for a breach of  contract in not return property deposit in trust without the verdict of a jury  the appellant in the year reside at parish and be possess of one hundred old  action or share in the India company there which cost he livres each and the  French government soon after call in all such old action a account be take to  who they belong and what have be pay for they respective to the end that  satisfaction may be make to the proprietor and the government there think fit  to give other action call liquidate action in lieu thereof by the number of  which liquidate action it appear who be the proprietor of the old action and  what they cost and accord among other a account be take of the appellant one  hundred old action so call in and what they real cost and thirty liquidate  action from No to No both inclusive be issue and deliver to the appellant in  lieu of they brown in the month of July the respondent the marquis of powis  whether countess of carington his sister and the lady mary Herbert his  daughter be in parish and have a prospect of obtain some considerable  advantage from the government of France by have these thirty liquidate action  in their hand apply to the appellant to deposit the same with they and the  appellant have a great opinion of the respondent the marquis and rely single  upon his credit be prevail upon after much entreaty to entrust his lordship  and the say lady with the liquidate action for fifteen day pt the expiration  whereof they be to be restore to the appellant accord the appellant on the  that of July n S deliver the say thirty liquidate action to the respondent the  marquis and the lady who thereupon give a receipt for the same in the French  language to captain Robert sempill who be employ by the appellant to deposit  these action in their hand and who take the say brown er p receipt in his own  name bare as a trustee for the appellant which receipt be in the follow word  nous sousignes my Lord Duc de powis madam la contesse de carington et  mademoiselle de powis reconnoissons avoir recu de Monsieur Robert de sempill  captain to hand over Le regiment de Dillon Le number de trente action doubt Le  dividendes of six derniers mois de lannee be attachees beat thoroughly No  jusqua No and nous nous obligeons garder enter our mains nous etant confiees  comme un depot less quelles memes action of No cy dessus nous nous engageons  solidairementIn the margin of the appellant print case be the follow note the  meaning of this well know term in the law of France be explain in Donats civil  law in its natural order and in the translation thereof by dr strahan book  three title in the chapter concern solidity among debtor and in the follow  dictionary of art and science of the great authority in France videlicet  dictionaire de lAccademie Francoise dictionaire de trevoux dictionaire de  furetiere vide the word Solidairement by which authority it appear that that  word mean joint and several or each for the whole de render au dit sieur  sempill you a son order Le vingte un trente un du present mois de juillet sans  autre jour de grace et pour lexecution du present engagement nous elisons our  domiciles a lhotelle de Bruxelles rue saint bemoist Fauxbourgh saint Germain  fait a parish Le seize juillet mille sept cent vingt trois upon the back of  which receipt be a endorsement in the word follow videlicet a parish juillet I  cede a Monsieur Mackenzie et a son order less trentes action cy dedans valeur  recue dudit sieur robert sempill this receipt be translate into English be to  the effect follow we the underwritten my Lord duke of powis madam the countess  of carington and mademoiselle of powis do acknowledge we to have receive of Mr  Robert sempill captain in the regiment of Dillon thirty action on which the  dividend for the last six month of the year brown be due from No to both  inclusive which we oblige ourselves to keep in our hand be entrust with we as  a deposit which same action from No to as above we joint and several engage  ourselves to restore to the say Mr sempill or his order the twentyfirst  thirtyfirst of this present month of July without any other day of grace and  for the execution of this present engagement we have choose our domicil at the  hotel of Brussels the street of saint Bennet in the suburb of saint Germain do  at parish the sixteenth of July and the endorsement be in English to the  effect follow parish that July I assign to Mr Mackenzie and his order the  within thirty action for value receive of that gentleman robert sempill the  time of restitution elapse the appellant apply to these noble person to have  back his action but to his great surprise be put off with repeat promise and  delay and after many fruitless solicitation be force in December to commence a  suit against they for relief in the name of the say Mr sempill his trustee in  one of the court of justice in parish and in the month of may he obtain a  decree against they for French livres principal money amount to pound sterling  in case they do not restore the say numerical action forthwith and also for  livres amount to pound sterling for damage and for livres amount to pound  sterling for cost by this decree the defendant bad their election either to  restore the identical action to the appellant or to pay he livres as the value  thereof but be determine to do neither and to elude the force of the decree  they soon after withdraw from France the lady into Spain and the respondent  the marquis into England without make the appellant any satisfaction the  appellant be thus defeat of the benefit of his decree and the action  themselves be of great value and the say defendant or some person by their  order and for their use continue to receive the annual dividend and produce of  the action which every year amount to a considerable sum the appellant be  oblige to follow the respondent the marquis for redress into England and  accord in Michaelmas term exhibit his bill in the court of exchequer against  the marquis alone the lady continue in Spain and not be amenable by the  process of any court of brown er p justice in England pray that the marquis  may come to a account with he for the dividend of the say action and may  restore the action themselves to the appellant or make he a adequate  satisfaction for the same the marquis in easter term put in his demurrer to  part and his answer to the residue of this bill the substance of which  demurrer be for that the say note or receipt be give at parish in France and  the say contract to be perform there by he joint with the say lady carington  and Herbert and that therefore the court ought not to take cognizance thereof  brown especial as the plaintiff have obtain a decree in parish against he the  say marquis and the say lady for French livres amount to pound sterling and  for other great sum for cost and damage which decree be still in force and  unreversed and if the plaintiff shall proceed in the say court of exchequer he  may receive a double satisfaction and also for that in case the say contract  be cognisable in England the same be proper triable at law by his answer he  admit that the government in France do call in all the old action or share in  the say company and that action call liquidate action be give in lieu of such  old action believe that by such liquidate action the government there may know  who be the proprietor of the old action and that he have hear that the  plaffitiff in the name of Mr sempill commence such suit in one of the court of  justice in parish and procure such sentence or decree as aforesaid which he  believe be still in force against he the say marquis and the say lady the  demurrer come on to be argue before the baron on the d of June they be please  to overrule the same and the answer upon exception take be report insufficient  the respondent the marquis put in a further answer by which he admit that some  time in he sign a paper write in French relate to a deposit of action make by  Mr sempill but insist that as the say contract be to be perform by he joint  with the say lady at parish and not elsewhere the plaintiff ought rather to  proceed upon the say decree make in parish than in the say court of exchequer  which ought not to decree a specific performance of the say contract by oblige  he to restore the say thirty action the same have be deposit with he joint  with the say lady and therefore he ought not to be sole charge therewith and  he the rather hope the court will not take cognizance thereof as well for that  the same be proper triable and determinable at law as for that he do not  promise either the plaintiff or Mr sempill to restore the say action or any  thing in lieu thereof at any time within six year next before the exhibit the  plaintiff bill this answer be also judge insufficient the marquis by his three  answer admit that the plaintiff be prevail on about the month of July to  entrust the say lady with the say action and do then deliver the same to they  but whether the plaintiff will not have be persuade thereto but upon the  credit of he the say marquis he know not he also admit he sign a paper write  in French relate to a deposit of action but whether to the effect in the bill  mention he can not set forth he further admit that the lady then be and have  for some year before be at Seville in Spain and that since his return into  England he have be often apply to on the plaintiff behalf by diverse person  for satisfaction of brown the say action but can not at that distance of time  recollect what answer he give they nor whether he late or ever acknowledge the  justice of the plaintiff demand to the say person but admit he do not know or  remember that the plaintiff ever receive any satisfaction from the lady or  either of they for his say action to these answer the appellant reply and  publication be pass the cause come on to be hear on the that of July when a  exception be take for the respondent the marquis that the representative of Mr  sempill be not before the court as a party the court on debate of the matter  direct the cause to stand over with liberty for the appellant to add party Mr  sempill have die at parish intestate and no administration have be sue out of  his effect administration thereof be grant under the seal of the prerogative  court of Canterbury to the respondent garden to the end and intent only to  attend supply and substantiate the proceed in this cause or any other cause  between the same party touch the premise the appellant thereupon amend his  bill by brown er p make the respondent garden a party who by his answer admit  that the thirty action in question be the property of the appellant and that  Mr Sempills name be use in the say write in trust only foil the appellant on  the d of December the cause come on again to be hear when a like objection be  take by the marquis counsel in point of form for that the lady who have  subscribe and be bind by the receipt together with the marquis be not bring as  party before the court but it appear by his lordship answer that those lady be  and have for several year before be in Spain and consequent be not amenable by  the process of any court of justice in England the court be of opinion that  the proceed be regular without bring the lady before the court as party and  therefore be please to decree that the appellant shall be at liberty to bring  on action or action at commonlaw against the respondent the marquis and the  say lady or any or either of they touch the matter demand by the bill as he  shall be advice and that the respondent garden shall permit the appellant to  make use of his name in such action or action or any other action or action  that he shall think fit to bring touch the say matter he the appellant first  give sufficient security to the respondent garden to indemnify he from cost in  that behalf and that the appellant bill shall be retain for one year and that  the cause shall be continue in the paper of cause to be further hear after the  determination of such suit or suit at commonlaw so as that the same shall be  determine within one year then next ensue when the court will in case such  trial shall he have in the mean time make such far order therein as shall be  just and the consideration of cost be reserve till the further hear of the  cause brown from this decree the appellant appeal insist W Hamilton W Murray  that his remedy lie proper in a court of equity as it be the case of a deposit  which be a trust that it be the case of a agreement a specific performance  whereof can only be decree in a court of equity and which in equity be  consider as perform at the time when it ought to have be perform it be also  the case of a account of dividend and other annual and casual produce of  thirty action or share in the French eastindia company for many year which can  not be so well take at law as in a court of equity where the respondent may be  examine upon interrogatory and oblige to produce all book and paper relate to  such account beside the appellant be altogether without remedy at law the  respondent be at liberty to plead the statute of limitation even during the  time the cause have depend in the court of exchequer whereas in equity the  statute of limitation be no bar in the case of a agreement or in the case of  any trust and much less in the case of a deposit the profit of which be annual  receive by the person with who it be deposit if the court have want the  assistance of a jury to ascertain any fact a issue may have be direct to which  the appellant can have have no objection but to send he to bring a action at  law when under the circumstance of his case no action will lie be in effect  deny he any relief at all though the justice of his case be not deny by the  respondent who do not dispute the right which be incontestable but contend in  a court of equity that this right shall be without a remedy and for that  purpose rest his defence principal upon these two point either that the  appellant ought to be bar from prosecute any suit here because he have obtain  a decree for it in parish though he have never receive any satisfaction in  pursuance of that decree nor can receive any the respondent be come over to  England with all his effect and his daughter and sister withdraw into Spain or  if the appellant demand be cognisable here notwithstanding the decree obtain  in parish yet it be only triable at law because at law the appellant can not  now possible maintain any action it be therefore hope that the decree will be  rectify and that the respondent the marquis will be decree to restore to the  appellant the say numerical action and account with he for the dividend accrue  thereon or make he a adequate satisfaction in that behalf on the other side it  be contend I strange n fazakerly that the appellant cause of suit be a mere  legal demand and that there be now no obstruction to his bring a action at law  he have the liberty to use the name of Sempills representative for that  purpose and therefore there be no necessity for a court of equity to interpose  in this case that the respondent ought not to be deprive of the benefit of a  legal trial and in case of a action be bring he ought to be at liberty to  plead brown er p such matter and make such defence as he shall be advice and  as the law allow brown that the note and the promise thereby make be a matter  triable at law only and in case the appellant be entitle to any satisfaction  from the respondent alone who never bad the action the damage in respect  thereof ought to be settle by a jury it be therefore hope that the decree will  be affirm and the appeal dismiss with cost after hear counsel on this appeal  it be order and adjudge that this addition shall be make to the decree  videlicet and that in such action or action to be bring at law the respondent  the say marquis shall not be permit to plead or insist on the statute of  limitation and that in the close of the say decree touch the reservation of  cost shall be leave out be and instead thereof shall be insert and all further  direction be and it be further order and adjudge that the say decree with the  addition and variation above mention shall be affirm a trial at law be accord  have and a verdict find in favour of the appellant for pound S d and the cause  be hear on the saint of February upon the equity reserve the marquis be decree  to pay this sum to the appellant with cost both at law and in equity register  of decree from easter to Trinity p a trial at law be accord have and a verdict  find in favour of the appellant for pound S d and the cause be hear on the  saint of February upon the equity reserve the marquis be decree to pay this  sum to the appellant with cost both at law and in equity register of decree  from easter to Trinity p jour vol p lever v Andrews brown PC er report date  case sir darcy lever appellant John andrews respondent that march Mews dig xiv  a be in possession of land for a long term of year contract for the purchase  of the reversion and inheritance but to prevent a merger of the term take the  conveyance to b absolute and without require any declaration of trust the  title deed be all along in the custody of a and those claim under he but a  descendant of b have by accident discover that the conveyance be make absolute  to he lie claim to the estate as his heir at law hold that under these  circumstance b be a trustee for a decree of the chancery court of the county  palatine of Lancaster reverse John hunt of Manchester be in his lifetime seize  of a message with the appurtenance in Manchester situate in a certain street  call the Marketstreet lane and one barn with the appurtenance to the say  message belong and three close in Manchester lie near and belong to the say  message call by the several name of the great meadow the brick Kiln meadow and  the field at the back of the house and afterward divide into four close by the  several name of the great brick brown Kiln meadow the little brick Kiln meadow  the Kiln field and the house field contain by estimation ten acre do by  indenture date the that of may make between the say John hunt of the one part  and Robert lever of DarcyLever in the county of Lancaster clothier of the  other part in consideration of pound pay by the say Robert lever demise to he  the say premise for the term of year from Michaelmas then next under the  yearly rend of S and some time after make this lease the say John hunt do by  deed demise the say premise to the say Robert lever for the term of year to  commence from Christmas under the yearly rend of S Robert lever be thus  possess of the say premise soon afterward die have first make his will whereby  he give the premise to his son John lever the appellant great grandfather so  long as the say lease shall continue soon after the death of Robert lever the  say John lever be entitle to the premise for the say term purchase the  reversion and inheritance thereof from the say John hunt or some person claim  under he whereby the say reserve rend as incident to the reversion pass along  with the inheritance and accord John brown er p lever never after the say  purchase pay the say reserve rend to the say John hunt his heir or assign or  any claim under he but one John Holcroft pretend that John hunt have by  indenture date the that of march convey the reversion and inheritance of the  say premise to he and his heir on his marriage with Margaret the daughter of  the say John hunt set up a claim to the inheritance of the premise and  thereupon there be diverse suit and controversy between the say John Holcroft  and John lever as appear by a award under the hand and seal of John Langley  bear date the that of march whereby it be award that all suit between they  shall cease and that the say John Holcroft shall convey and assure the say  premise unto the say John lever and his heir some time after the death of John  hunt videlicet in George hunt gentleman claim the reversion and inheritance of  the say premise expectant on the determination of the say term of year either  as heir at law of John hunt or by some entail create by he after his grant the  say term with remainder to Edmund hunt brother of the say George and John the  say John lever in order to strengthen his title and more effectual to secure  to himself and his heir the say reversion and inheritance and to take away any  pretence of right that may afterward be set up against his title thereto agree  to purchase the right and interest of the say George and Edmund hunt in the  say reversion and accord by a bind date the that of August the say George hunt  become bind to the say John lever in the sum of pound under a condition that  the say George hunt shall at all time assure convey and confirm unto the say  John lever and his heir the say premise with the appurtenance brown then to  before in the tenure and occupation of one John hunt so as the say John lever  his heir and assign may have and enjoy the freehold thereof for ever which  conveyance and assurance be to he have and do by the say George hunt to the  say John lever his heir and assign either by fine feoff recovery or by any  other lawful way and mean accord to the advice of the counsel learned in the  law of the say John lever and at the cost and charge of he his heir and assign  and by another bind date the that of the same month the say George hunt become  bind to the say John lever in the penal sum of pound under a condition that  the say George hunt shall convey and assure to the say John lever and his heir  in like manner as he have agree by the condition of the say former bind the  say premise free from all fine feoff sale statute contract and assurance  whatsoever with some other little variation from the former condition and some  time afterward by another bind date the that of February the say Edmund hunt  become bind to the say John lever in the penal sum of pound under condition  that the say John lever his heir and assign shall hold and enjoy the say  premise without any let suit trouble or disturbance and free from all  encumbrance by or from the say Edmund hunt or any claim under he John lever  have thus contract with the say George and Edmund hunt for the purchase of the  reversion and inheritance of the say premise direct proper conveyance thereof  to be make but in order to prevent the say term of year which be then in the  say John from merge or be lose as it will have be if the inheritance have be  convey to he it be think advisable to take the conveyance of the inheritance  in the name of trustee and therefore the say John direct that they shall be  take in the name of Robert lever of DarcyLever gentleman and James lever of  Manchester clothier who be near relation of his and accord by indenture of  feoff date the that of December the say George hunt for the consideration  therein mention grant and convey to the say Robert lever and James lever their  heir and assign the reversion and inheritance of the say premise with several  covenant for quiet enjoyment and against encumbrance except the say lease for  year and for further assurance and by another indenture of feoff date the that  of February the say Edmund hunt in like manner grant and convey the say  premise to the say Robert lever and James lever their heir and assign and by a  endorsement upon each of these deed respective it be mention that the say John  lever do consent and agree thereunto and pay twopence in the name of  attornment to the say Robert and James lever some time in John lever die  intestate whereupon Katherine his wife take out letter of administration to he  and afterward call upon George and Edmund hunt to make further assurance  accord by indenture tripartite date the that brown er p brown of march and  make between the say George hunt and Edmund hunt of the first part the say  Robert and James lever of the second part and Thomas Warburton and Richard  Warburton of the three part George and Edmund hunt do covenant and agree to  suffer a common recovery of the say premise to the say Robert and James lever  to the use follow for the strengthen corroborate and confirm of the before  mention lease for year and as to the reversion and inheritance of the say  premise expectant on the determination of that lease to the use of the say  Robert and James lever their heir and assign pursuant to this deed a common  recovery wherein the say Thomas and Richard Warburton be demandant the say  Robert lever and James lever tenant and the say George hunt and Edmund hunt  vouchees be duly suffer of the say premise by virtue whereof and of the  several before mention purchase deed the say Robert and James lever become  legal seize of the reversion and inheritance of the say premise expectant upon  the determination of the say term of year in trust for the heir of the say  John lever and those claim under he on the death of John lever the equitable  reversion and inheritance of the premise descend to Robert lever his old son  the appellant grandfather but the say Katherine lever hold and enjoy the  premise and afterward assign the same to her young son John lever and then  devise the same to he by her will and after her death he enjoy the same for  his life the term go all along till the determination of it in a course of  administration disannexed from the inheritance on the death of Robert lever  the premise descend to John lever his only son and heir the appellant father  and upon his death come to the appellant in that right but before the  determination of the term there be some suit revive against John revel lever  the appellant brother to who the say John the father have give the premise  which suit have for many year be carry on in the court of chancery concern the  inheritance of the say premise and the say John revel lever be inform that the  respondent can give he some light into his family affair produce the title  deed to the respondent for that purpose who find the same to have be take in  the name of the say Robert and James lever set up a title to the premise as  heir at law of Robert lever one of the trustee who as he pretend survive James  lever the other trustee the lease of year expire at Christmas and soon  afterward the respondent by mean of some indirect practice with the tenant  obtain possession of the barn and close but not be able to prevail with Sarah  Brearcliffe the tenant in possession of the say message to attorn to he he  serve her with a declaration in ejectment but instead of proceed therein the  respondent on the that of December exhibit his bill in the chancery court hold  for the county palatine of brown Lancaster a against the say John revel and  Sarah Brearcliffe pretend that the say Robert and James lever be the real  purchaser of the premise and that he be the heir of the survivor of they and  therefore pray that he may have a account of the rend and profit of the say  premise and be let into possession of such part thereof as the defendant  Brearcliffe hold and enjoy to this bill the say John revel lever on the that  of February put in his answer and thereby swear that one leigh Bage claim  title to the premise under a pretend grant thereof from John hunt and he be  inform that the respondent can give some light into his pedigree apply to he  for that purpose and produce some abstract of the purchase deed or otherwise  acquaint the respondent with the same who by this accident have discover that  the deed be take in the name of the say Robert and James lever without any  trust be express in the same and presume that the say John revel lever have no  manner of evidence of the say trust set up his pretend title to the premise  pen this suit John revel lever die intestate and without issue whereupon the  premise descend to the appellant as his only brother and heir at law and on  the d of July the appellant exhibit his bill in the say court against the  respondent pray that he may have a account of the rend and profit of the say  estate and have the possession and a conveyance thereof in execution of the  say trust and that he may hold and enjoy the same against the respondent and  his heir the respondent by his answer to this bill admit that the say John  revel lever brown er p apply to he and make inquiry touch the pedigree of the  Levers and that the purchase deed be then mention but pretend he know and be  apprise of the say deed and title before such application be make but say he  can not set forth when or by what mean he first discover the purchase deed  save as aforesaid and admit that he never to his knowledge have the purchase  deed or the deed paper and write relate to the premise in his custody or  possession and also admit that he give one of the tenant pound and another  pound S and thereby get into possession of the say barn and close both cause  be at issue and witness examine they come on to be hear in the duchy court of  Lancaster on the that of November the that of December and the d of February  when the court refuse to permit the award make by the say Langley to be read  declare that the reversion and inheritance of the say premise be not a trust  for the appellant but that it be vest in the respondent and his heir and  therefore order and decree that the appellant shall account with the  respondent for the rend and profit of the estate receive and enjoy by he since  the determination of the say lease for year and shall deliver up possession  thereof with the deed and brown write relate thereto to the respondent and it  be refer to the clerk of the court or his deputy to take a account of what the  appellant or any for his use have receive by the rend and profit for the time  aforesaid which after a deduction of just allowance the appellant be to pay to  the respondent and it be order that the appellant cross bill shall be dismiss  and that the respondent shall have his cost in both cause and that the  appellant shall pay the same the appellant conceive himself aggrieve by this  decree appeal from it insist d rider I strange I idle that it be manifest his  great grandfather agree with George and Edmund hunt for a conveyance of the  reversion and inheritance of the premise and for that purpose take the say  bind from they and as on the one hand it be natural to suppose that a person  entitle to so long a term will be desirous of purchase the inheritance and  keep the estate always in his family so on the other hand it be absurd to  suppose that two stranger who live at a great distance from each other shall  purchase a dry reversion of a estate and make themselves joint tenant of it  when neither of they will probable live out half the term that it appear from  the time of the conveyance of the premise to Robert and James lever that they  be in pursuance of the respective agreement contain in the condition of the  bind and though not make to John lever to who the say bind be give be  nevertheless in trust for he and his heir and the only inducement to take the  conveyance in the name of trustee be to prevent the term from merge in the  inheritance that though Katherine the widow and administratrix of John lever  have in that right possess the term and afterward assign and then devise the  same to her young son yet as John lever have not declare the term to be  attendant on the inheritance she may consider it as her right or as asset to  pay debt term in the owner where the inheritance be in his trustee have be  consider as asset to pay debt but if he know that the term ought to go with  the inheritance it amount only to this that she design conceal her old son  title from he beside the conveyance of the inheritance of the premise have  never be in the possession of the respondent or any under who he claim but  have all along be in the possession of those claim under John the devisee of  the term and under who the appellant claim to this it be say I brown n  fazakerly on the other side that the respondent title arise under deed of  absolute purchase in in which no trust be mention or intimate but on the  contrary the purchase money be express mention to be pay by the respondent  ancestor and this clear legal title be endeavour tobe take away sole by the  pretence of a trust arise above year ago without any declaration of trust in  write or the least evidence of payment of the consideration money but brown  find mere upon uncertain conjecture which be not only unsupported by any  possession agreeable to the trust but contradict by a long successive  possession inconsistent with it that if John lever who be entitle to the term  purchase in the reversion though in another name he be then owner of the term  and inheritance too and the term will have be no long a term in gross but  attendant upon the inheritance and on his death the estate ought to have be  enjoy brown er p by Robert his old son and heir but instead of that though he  die within a year of this pretend purchase of the inheritance and when the  fact if true be recent and can not be forget by the family yet Katherine his  widow and administratrix enter and enjoy it as a leasehold and settle it upon  her young son and it have ever since be enjoy as a leasehold only and by those  who can not claim it as a inheritance that the pretence set up to make it  probable that the inheritance be purchase in trustee name be that the term may  not be merge whereas it be more probable that the term will have be assign to  a trustee and the inheritance take in the name of a real purchaser but this  appear to be a mere pretence for when John lever die the term vest in point of  law in his administratrix and his heir may safe have take a limitation of the  inheritance without a merger of the term and yet the use of the recovery which  be suffer after John lever death be declare to the respondent ancestor though  no account can be give why their name shall be again use as trustee when the  sole reason for it cease and when there be no declaration or other write to  manifest the truth but several objection be take to the right claim by the  respondent I that the use of the recovery be first to corroborate the term and  then to the respondent ancestor in fee two that the bind of the that of August  and that of February from Edmund and George hunt to John lever be proof of his  be the real purchaser III that it be improbable that Robert and James lever  shall purchase only a dry reversion expectant upon so long a term and IV that  the purchase deed be in the appellant hand to the first objection it be answer  that the declare the use of the recovery in this manner be not only proper but  necessary even for the sake of the vendor who sell to the respondent ancestor  a reversion only for no use can have be limit of that reversion without  mention the particular estate upon which it be expectant as to the second  objection it be say that the bind be at the most but proof that John lever  once intend to purchase but not that he actual do purchase and their remain  cancel and in the appellant hand afford a much strong proof that whatever  intention or agreement there once be to convey the reversion to John lever it  never be carry into execution for otherwise these bind will have be cancel or  deliver up on brown the execution of the conveyance unless it be to be imagine  that in this transaction contrary to the course of business and even to common  prudence the vendee complete his purchase without have any thing to show for  it and that the vendor perform his agreement without cancel or take up his  bind or have any discharge from they for the conveyance to the respondent  ancestor neither recite the bind nor be a performance of the condition but be  make to different person and different use and though at this distance of time  it be impossible for the respondent to show upon what occasion these bind be  give yet neither do the appellant show how they come to remain cancel and upon  the foot of conjecture there be as much room to imagine that the name of John  lever be make use of in the bind as a trustee for Robert and James lever as  that their name be use the conveyance in trust for John Lever to the three  objection it be say to be far from improbable that both branch of the family  may be try to get this reversion and that the respondent ancestor who be the  elder branch may as the premise lie convenient and near to the family estate  endeavour to buy the reversion as a mean of buy the term also but if that  argument weigh any thing the objection be the same to the appellant as the  respondent for suppose the appellant and his ancestor to have be entitle yet  it be only to a dry reversion expectant upon the determination of a year term  and it be certain that the term be constant enjoy as a chattel interest and by  the young branch of the family it be equal improbable that John lever shall  purchase the reversion and inheritance for the benefit of the heir of his  family in who it be not to take place otherwise than as a dry reversion for  near the space of years And as to the four objection it do not appear how the  purchase deed come into the appellant hand but it be probable that upon the  death of Robert lever without issue male and the appellant ancestor come into  possession of the bulk of the family estate the deed in question may by  mistake or accident be intermix with the family deed and thereby come into the  hand of the appellant ancestor for it be plain that they know nothing of these  deed because the appellant father claim his brown er p estate by collateral  descent from the young branch of his family which be inconsistent with the  purchase deed and even with the appellant own title he deduce the same as heir  to the elder branch of his family in a direct line from John lever the pretend  real purchaser of the reversion after hear counsel on this appeal it be  declare that the inheritance of the premise in question be vest in the  respondent in trust for the appellant and his heir and therefore it be order  and adjudge that the decree complain of shall be reverse and that the  respondent shall at the charge of the appellant convey the legal estate of the  premise in brown question to the appellant and his heir and it be further  order that the respondent shall forthwith deliver possession of such part of  the premise as be in his possession or in the possession of any of his  undertenant to the appellant and shall also deliver to the appellant all deed  and write in his custody or power relate to the premise upon oath and shall  come to a account with the appellant before the clerk of the court of the  duchy Chamber of Lancaster or his deputy for the rend and profit thereof  receive by the respondent or any other person by his order or for his use and  pay to the appellant what shall be find due on the say account after a  deduction of all just allowance and that for the better take such account the  respondent shall be examine on interrogatory as the say clerk or his deputy  shall direct and shall produce upon oath all book paper and write relate  thereto and it be further order that the respondent bill shall be dismiss and  that no cost shall be pay on either side hitherto but that the cost of take  the account now direct and all other subsequent cost shall be reserve till  after the say clerk or his deputy shall have make his report and it be further  order that the say court shall give all necessary and proper direction for  carry this order and judgement into due execution jour vol p