case veer essex earl of ARDGLASSE plaintiff henry MUSCHAMP defendant April  Lord keeper Eq can ab pl c pl Ch Rep S c grant of a rend charge in fee after a  die without issue male set aside for fraud Vid ante can pound Thomas earl of  Ardglasse for in the year do grant to the defendant a rentcharge of pound per  annum out of land in Ireland of pound a year to hold to the defendant and his  heir and to commence from the first Michaelmas or ladyday after the earl death  without issue male with a proviso that if the earl have any issue male who  shall attain the age of twentyone year the grant shall be void afterward the  earl settle his estate for pound consideration to the use of himself for life  remainder in tail to all his issue male the remainder in tail to the plaintiff  his uncle which be accord to a former settlement make by the ancestor of his  family and which earl Thomas upon his marriage have bar and then the plaintiff  and earl Thomas both bring their bill to be relieve against the grant of the  rentcharge allege that it be obtain by fraud and practice by debauch earl  Thomas with drink and woman and that the grant be pretend to be only a  security for repayment of the money and interest after which bill bring the  defendant obtain a release of that suit from earl Thomas and the now earl bill  be earl Thomas be dead to set aside the grant and release upon payment of  pound with interest and upon the first hear of this cause before the Lord  keeper though he declare there be a foul practice yet he doubt it may be too  great a violation upon contract to set it aside therefore advice the plaintiff  to amend the bill Vernon chancery case the plaintiff afterward obtain a rehear  and many precedent in the Lord Elsmeres Lord Bacon and Lord Coventry time and  since be produce whereby it appear that unconscionable bargain which have be  make with young heir have be set aside by decree of this court and it appear  in this case that at the time of the bargain the earl be very young and have  forsake his wife and her friend in Ireland and live here in London in riot and  debauchery and for supply of his expense have make this bargain without the  advice of any friend or counsel of his Vernon chancery case er p own but rely  whole on the defendant and that the consideration be but one year purchase for  a rentcharge in fee now fall into possession and that the contingency of the  earl die without issue male upon which the defendant do insist chief for his  defence be a artifice of the defendant the earl as appear in proof be disable  to get child and however that contingency may be use as a argument to persuade  the earl that he have the best of the bargain yet the Lord keeper do not think  it likely the defendant will have make it but in expectation of a unreasonable  advantage and that the earl will in a short time by his vicious debauch course  of life destroy himself as he do and it appear also that the defendant be  inform by the earl surgeon that the earl be not able to get a child and  therefore the contingency be not to be look upon as if the earl have be in  ordinary circumstance but as it be in the eve of the defendant who be his  companion in those debauchery and it appear also that the defendant be  solicitous to draw the earl into the like bargain with other people and that  the release be obtain without any consideration after the settlement on the  plaintiff whereupon though for the defendant it be insist that it be a just  bargain in regard of the contingency nor have the defendant any mean to  recover his money again and that the bargain be make when the earl be in good  health and be acknowledge three month after in order to be enroll Vernons  chancery case and that there be no fraud in obtain the grant or release the  Lord keeper declare that the more he hear of the cause the worse he like it  and that the earl of Ardglasse be easy dissolute and necessitous the defendant  in conjunction with his cousin deny Muschamp who have get another unreasonable  bargain from the earl which have be set aside by this court have beset the  earl and have get a copy of the settlement from Muschamp who have the original  conceal both from the earl and that the precedent produce come up to the case  as he think and therefore after some day consideration have he decree a  reconveyance or release of the rentcharge and that the same shall be set aside  and a perpetual injunction award upon the plaintiff pay the defendant pound  and interest and the defendant obtain a rehear afterward the Lord keeper upon  the rehear declare he be full satisfy in the decree and that if he be to die  present he will make it and so confirm it Reg lib a fol that July but the  decree be alter in this respect videlicet that whereas by the decree it be  order that on payment of pound and interest at pound per cent to the defendant  he the defendant shall convey the say rentcharge of pound per and to the  plaintiff it be now upon this rehear decree that on such payment of pound the  say defendant be not only forthwith to deliver up to the plaintiff the deed  whereby the rentcharge be grant to be can celled but also to surrender and  release all his estate and interest to the plaintiff by such instrument as the  master shall direct and that the plaintiff shall hold the land and premise in  question discharge of the say rentcharge against the defendant his heir and  assign and all other person claim c note in this case Lord keeper say that the  overvalue be it never so great be not of itself sufficient ground to set aside  a bargain or whereupon this court can presume a fraud r l but it be certain  not now so consider vide case cite in not to batty v Lloyd ante see also the  case on this subject collect in Fonbl Tr Eq book ch S to which may be add  Stilwell v Wilkins Jacob about a year afterward a bill be bring by the  plaintiff against George Pitt Esq earl of Ardglasse versus Pitt or who by the  agency of the defendant Muschamp have obtain for pound consideration the like  grant from the earl of a rentcharge of pound per annum draw exact different to  move by Huschamps grant to be relieve against that grant to Pitt though Mr  Pitt insist he do not transact that affair with the earl himself but be tell  by Muschamp that such a bargain may be have leave it to they to deal therein  between they and pretend utter ignorance of the earl state of life or  condition of health when the bargain be make so that he be innocent and a fair  purchaser which pretence be foresee it be charge by the bill particular that  Pitt method in carry on the contract by Muschamp be a further instance of the  fraud that so if he be question he may deny his knowledge of the condition of  the earl and though indeed the matter of the defendant ignorance Vernon  chancery case of the earl condition be all he have to insist on for his  defence more than what Muschamp have in his case yet the Lord chancellor  Jeffereys upon the hear of this cause inasmuch as it appear that Muschamp have  see Mr Pitt broker in other unreasonable bargain declare that it be not to be  believe that Mr Pitt will make this bargain without enquiry and knowledge of  the condition of the man he deal withal and that therefore Mr Pitt pretence of  not personal know the earl or not treat with he be not only a further evidence  of the fraud but that he be conscious he shall be question and pretend that  ignorance the better to excuse it and declare fraud be to hide from fraud and  decree Pitt to release and reconvey upon payment of his pound and interest and  a perpetual injunction Mr Pitt appear to have put in a plea which be order to  stand for a answer with liberty to except Reg lib a fol vide on the doctrine  of fraudulent bargain in general and with heir deal for their expectation  batty v Lloyd ante above refer to Vernon chancery case er p