annesly versus Dixon hill Ann this day this case be argue and the three  justice against powys be for affirm the judgement and accord it affirm gold I  say that he think the power of the trustee by the Act be negative videlicet  that they have power only over the forfeit estate of the land belong to the  late king James in Ireland which land be by this Act of parliament vest in  they their power to inquire which be those land be only in the nature of a  inquisitionoffice this negative and limit by the preamble because there this  show the Irish begin a rebellion c therefore their estate be forfeit in order  to aid the great expense this kingdom be at in reduce those rebel and to that  purpose be vest in the trustee and the same order be take for the estate of  the late king James this will not sure vest any other estate than those  mention for the estate of innocent person shall not be affect thereby because  it not intend they shall suffer this true the trustee have a great power but  that be only over what be vest but then it say that they have power to  determine what be vest because they can not otherwise know what land they have  as to that I think their power be rather like a office of inquisition to know  the certainty of the land and their power be over land vest only and if they  have any power over any other land it by implication only and I be of opinion  that no Act of parliament can vest my land in they without express word and  this at most be but by implication which be not sufficient I holt KB think it  be doubtful and therefore to be construe accord to the commonlaw as it be hold  in Fermor S case   b a terry and Huntington be I think full for the judgement  and I do believe the maker of this statute do only intend to vest the land of  king James and the forfeit person and if they mean otherwise they do not show  it in express word ergo affirm the judgement powis contra the trustee can be  say to be a inquisition of office for they be a court of judicature and have a  extraordinary power give they and there be great reason for give they such a  power for Ireland be a country wherein rebellion be very frequent and once in  every fifty year the Roman catholic gentleman have always have private  settlement whereby they evade the forfeiture upon that account and therefore a  Act of parliament do take notice thereof for which you may see the care that  be take in the act of settlement and explanation and though both of they be  much more uncertain than this Act of parliament yet they be hold sacred by the  court of judicature in Ireland and a decree of their court of claim or letter  patent be conclusive and much more in this case for the maker of this Act have  the consideration of these other act before they therefore they give their  commissioner the trustee full power to hear and determine and the step they be  to take clear chalk out this Act be much better and more clear pen and I know  not why it shall not meet with the same encouragement the trustee have a power  of judicature the plaintiff Dixon in this judicature claim and in his claim he  own that sir William Talbot the duke of York S agent do let holt KB er p to  Quinn so be do show that it be a doubtful point who have the right then they  do bear and determine this point upon full debate and the Act say their  judgement be final if so then there be no reason to bring this ejectment but  it be say they have not a power to determine what be vest this I take to be  one main point and the second point be if a jury can inquire and find contrary  to their decree to the first point I say that in every clause of the Act they  have a power to determine what be vest first by the claim clause by as strong  general word as counsel can devise all person have any estate right title or  interest c sure this do extend to a inheritance and not to encumbrance only as  they will object on the other side for it be not in reason to be suppose but  the legislator holt KB will take at least as much care that the purchaser  under this Act shall be at least as free from pretend title or real elder  title as from encumbrance which be perishable in respect of title which may  defeat the entire purchase and we shall not presume that any judge shall or  will do any thing that be not fair much less these judge who be man of great  merit and be choose by king lord and Commons and be man of great integrity for  we never hear of any complaint of they before now it be true they can say that  what they will be in their jurisdiction but they may say that these land do  belong to the duke of York and upon bear they may determine it and we be to  presume they do determine true and not the contrary for this court be arm with  a sufficient power and do upon debate hear and determine this claim and I  think it hard that a verdict shall set aside a judgement that be give upon so  solemn a debate for the question before the trustee be whether the land in  question do belong to the late duke of York and the trustee upon debate  adjudge it to have belong ergo it vest in they for I take it that the  forfeiture and other land c be at first vest in the trustee only sub modus or  de bene be that be until the same shall be divest by subsequent claim so I say  they be not absolute vest at first though I do agree if the vest clause have  come after the claim clause it have be plain but it be the office of the judge  to marshal clause in act of parliament so that all may best stand together for  they be to register all the land vest which they can do before they know what  be vest but they do register on a probable cause and they do well in so do for  then they be to claim but in this case as they will have it it be the same  thing whether they claim or not for if the trustee give it against they on a  claim regular hear yet they may bring their ejectment and try it over again at  law though the judgement of the trustee be to be final and this be like the  notion some have of predestination whether they do well or in their fate be  fix and immutable this court of the trustee be compare to commissioner of  bankrupt which differ from it because this be a court of judicature but if  commissioner of bankrupt have power to inquire and determine of the estate of  the bankrupt it will be the same the trustee have power by this Act to reward  discoverors and it seem by holt KB this special verdict they give l to this Mr  Annesley and how can they reward they before the title be make out this  defendant make out a title which the trustee think be good and pay the money  of the public for the same and now they come at law and say this be no true  discovery this sure will make this part of the Act nugatory and idle so that  you must allow they a power to determine what be vest or else you make the Act  idle by the claim clause any person have any title estate or interest be to  claim and the trustee be to determine and their determination be final Mr  Dixon have claim the trustee have determine it yet now we have they at law  this I think be against the Act for the claim which be the save clause in this  Act be useless because though I do not claim yet I may have my remedy at law  and here Mr Dixon be safe for the land decree for he and there as to that he  acquiesce but as to the land decree against he be sue so it be strange he  shall be lose and the public bind a claim I take to be a suggestion of a  exemption of a forfeiture the determination of which be final if that be so  then the person that determine the claim have power to determine what be vest  and what not for a power of bear and determine carry in its nature a power of  determine what be vest or else this power also will be nugatory and this now  will fall upon holt KB er p English protestant purchaser who venture their  money on the high security this nation can give they and who be not to have  any equivalent nor have they any warranty covenant or any other collateral  remedy so that they will be in a very mischievous case and they be those that  will only suffer whereas if the construction I contend for be allow then no  body will suffer and if the trustee have a exorbitant power which be absolute  necessary in that kingdom to settle a peace there it seem they make very good  use thereof for that there have be no clamour nor complaint against they this  Mr Dixon be the only person that I have hear who think himself wrong by they  and for these reason and because of the great mischief that I foresee will  happen if the estate of the purchaser under this Act be suffer to be question  I think the judgement give in b r in Ireland shall be reverse Powell I I think  the judgement in Ireland shall be affirm and I take it there be but one single  question holt KB in this case and that be whether the trustee have a power to  determine what be vest in they and for that I take it that no land be vest in  the trustee but what belong to king James or to forfeit person now these land  do not belong to king James and I take it that their determine that they do  belong to he will not make it so my brother powis be right in say it be  necessary to settle Ireland in peace but if this construction will hold it  will be a way to kindle a new war there if all the land in that kingdom be  vest in seven person and then to be divest by their claim which I believe be  what no man in England or Ireland do suppose or imagine when this Act be make  I can tell where this power be give to the trustee to determine what be vest  Mr solicitor tell we it be in one place Mr attorney in another place and both  my brother powis S I think it be ever that where in every clause and I confess  I be so dull I can find it any where but my brother will have it vest sub  modus I can understand that for if all the land that a have have be by Act of  parliament vest in b now nothing be vest in b but the land which a have which  be our case but if a Act of parliament will vest certain land as Blackacre and  Whiteacre in certain person there those land be vest in these person immediate  let the property have be in who it will because every body be a party to a Act  of parliament so no wrong to any person but if only as I say the land of a be  to be vest then no other person S land shall be vest and there be no need of a  save for any other person and there must be a inquisition or some office to  find and ascertain what land a have vide Plowd so be the opinion of hob Hatton  and Jones Jones so if in this case king James be in b seize vet the right of  the disseizee be not vest in the trustee but and the disseizee may claim the  inheritance from they because the possession be vest in they and so there be  and may be a case where the inheritance may be claim as well as encumbrance  but over a innocent person S estate they have no jurisdiction at all so what  they do in such case be in person non judge it be much insist upon that the  crown be bind by the judgement of the trustee and the subject not now I do  think that neither the crown nor subject be any way bind by any judgement of  the trustee but where they have jurisdiction and if the crown holt KB have any  prior or other right to these land the trustee allow to Mr Dixon I can think  the decree of the trustee will in that case be conclusive to the queen for all  the clause in this Act of parliament depend upon the vest clause it be very  fit they shall have proper mean to find out what land do belong to king James  and therefore the encouragement be give discoverer but if the trustee be not  well inform and the land do not belong to the late king James c it be at the  trustee peril I think the verdict be very fair for I have hear of no fault  that be find with it and I hope the affirmance of this judgement will not be  of such ill consequence as my brother apprehend holt c j I think the proceed  and decree of the trustee in this case be void arid in person non judge and  that the lessor of the plaintiff have a good title to enter and I do agree  with my brother Powell that any other construction of this Act of parliament  will be instead of quiet Ireland the ready way to have a new war there it be  intend the forfeit land and those belong to king James shall be vest in these  gentleman in order to be sell for the public and instead of this holt KB er p  we will vest all the kingdom in they this will be a mad construction I know  none of the trustee they may be honest gentleman for ought I know yet it will  be very unreasonable to give they such a power I believe the parliament will  not thank we to give such a construction to their Act but it will be say that  the Act be execute and no hurt do so this fear needless but I beg their pardon  for if all the land in Ireland be vest in they then such as have not claim be  by this construction in a very bad condition for they be conclude by the save  clause take this Act as it be make and intend to have a very reasonable  construction and interpretation if king James have be a seize as my brother  Powell say the possession and defeasible estate be vest in the trustee if a  forfeit person have a right of action or entry this be vest in the trustee but  the possession in the hand of a innocent person be undisturbed by the Act so  if a forfeit person have a condition c if tenant for life be a forfeit person  this estate be in the trustee but not the reversion or remainder and be in  reversion or remainder need no claim for there be no necessity to claim any  thing but what be vest the person who be to claim holt KB be those who have a  right to the thing vest before the that of February as to the land of the late  king James so much for the particular of the Act which I take it agree with  the whole the trustee have a sufficient power over these land that be to be  sell and there be no reason or necessity to vest any more in they I must  confess I know not what be mean by a vest de bene be or sub modus but I think  the case put by my brother Powell where the land of a be vest by Act of  parliament be very good law and full to our present purpose so I take the case  of terry and Huntington to be very full to this case suppose a formedon be  bring in this court and the demandant be bar after be bring a formedon in the  c b and the tenant plead the judgement in this court against he this be do bar  for the judgement here be in person non judge for the admittance of the party  do not give a jurisdiction to a court so a appeal for murder in the c b and  the defendant be condemned it be penal in the sheriff to execute it so in the  case of the Marshalsea where their jurisdiction be limit to action and also be  limit to person within the verge c as to the mischief to the purchaser I can  think they be to be in a better condition than those who buy forfeiture every  day though true the purchaser under the trustee be in better condition for the  trustee have power to send for keep or destroy all their adversary deed this  case be very learned argue by my brother powis Mr attorney and Mr solicitor  yet I must confess I never conceive the least doubt of the case and I be still  very clear in it that the judgement shall be affirm holt KB issue general