London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5. Originally published by London Record Society, London, 2000.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying and sponsored by London Record Society. All rights reserved.
Pleadings, 1685-1686: nos 121-151
121. Stiles v Langham
P: (1) Thomas Stiles, grocer, St. Mary Overs, Surrey. D: (1) John Langham, grocer, London. C: (1) William Hewes, counsel for p; (2) William Killingworth, counsel for d. P seeks an inj ag d's suit at law for payment of a £20 promissory note. P claims he had hired d as his broker to buy goods in London on his behalf, & that he issued the note at d's request before finding he did not owe d the money. D denies he was p's broker, but alleges p issued the note for goods he sold p.
122. Stoughton v Palmer
P: (1) Hannah Stoughton, H. Stoughton's widow & administratrix. D: (1) Matthew Palmer, d2's husband; (2) Clementia Palmer, T. Stanney's widow & administratrix, d1's wife; (3) Edward Stanney, T. Stanney's cousin & trustee. C: (1) Daniell ?, counsel for p (signature damaged); (2) Francis Browne, counsel for d3; (3) Appleton, counsel for ds1-2. Add: (1) Humphrey Stoughton, tailor, deceased, p's husband; (2) Timothy Stanney, Hammersmith, Midd, deceased, d2's previous husband; (3) Percivall Stanney gent., St. Martin in the Fields, Midd, deceased; (4) Richard Wheeler, hosier, T. Stanney's executor; (5) Charles Wheeler, goldsmith, T. Stanney's executor. P, widow & administratrix of H. Stoughton, seeks payment of £25 12s 5d which T. Stanney (d2's previous husband, deceased) owed H. Stoughton. In 1675 T. Stanney & P. Stanney (deceased) bought the office of messenger's place from the Crown during the reign of Charles II, & entrusted it to d3. Ds1-2 claim T. Stanney's estate is insufficient to pay debts & his executors R. & C. Wheeler were unwilling to execute his will.
|1685, Hil||E 112/588||Bill. LMX 1.|
|1685, May 5||E 112/588||Answer. Swearing date of d3's answer.|
|1685, May 9||E 112/588||Answer (with attachments). Swearing date of answer of ds1-2; inventory attached of T. Stanney's personal estate & debts.|
123. Strong v Ashby
P: (1) Joseph Strong, goldsmith, St. Katherine's near the Tower, Midd. D: (1) Champion Ashby, merchant, London, part owner of a ship, the William and Betty, d2's attorney; (2) Searne Williamson, Norway, R. Menlove's administrator. C: (1) Richard Knapp, counsel for p. Add: (1) Rowland Menlove, mariner, Ratcliffe, Midd, deceased; (2) John Clarke, merchant, London. P seeks payment of a £64 penal bond R. Menlove issued him in 1682 for a £33 5s loan. Menlove later issued a £250 bond with d1 (part owner of a ship, the William and Betty) to J. Clarke for the repayment of £127 10s to repair the ship, for which d1 indemnified Menlove & appointed him ship's master. In 1683 Menlove sailed the ship to Guinea & drowned. D2 (Menlove's administrator) issued d1 his power of attorney to receive debts owed to Menlove, & ds now refuse to repay p's bond.
|1685, Easter||E 112/589||Bill (with attachments). LMX 60; cf. E 112/589 LMX 68 Nelson v Williamson; inventory attached of R. Menlove's goods on board the ship.|
124. Symons v Watts
P: (1) Thomas Symons, merchant, London, part owner of a ship, the Success, lived in Montserrat. D: (1) Stephen Watts, merchant, Bristol, copartner with ds2-3, part owner of the Success; (2) Richard Gotley, merchant, Bristol, copartner with d1 & d3, part owner of the Success; (3) Edward Perrin, merchant, Bristol, copartner with ds1-2, part owner of the Success. C: (1) William Leigh, counsel for p. Add: (1) John Jones, mariner, Bristol, p's attorney; (2) Arthur Hart, merchant, Bristol, arbitrator between p & ds; (3) Robert Henley, merchant, Bristol, arbitrator between p & ds; (4) John Hine, merchant, Bristol, arbitrator between p & ds; (5) Robert Yate, merchant, Bristol, arbitrator between p & ds. P seeks reimbursement of £26 19s 10d from ds after J. Jones, acting on p's behalf, issued ds a general release and paid d2 £72 following arbitration by A. Hart, R. Henley, J. Hine & R. Yate of a dispute between p & ds. P (resident in Montserrat) & ds had sent their ship, the Success, to the Caribbean Islands, where p sold it as decayed & unprofitable. Ds threatened to sue for the ship, cargo & damages. P claims ds owe him £26 19s 10d, but ds claim the arbitrators awarded them less than their damages.
125. Taylor v Bickerton
P: (1) Samuel Taylor, button seller, parish of St. Andrews, Holborn, Midd. D: (1) George Bickerton, merchant, London; (2) Peter Squoles, d3's husband; (3) Anne Squoles, d2's wife, E. Williams's widow & administratrix. C: (1) William Brooke, counsel for p; (2) Thomas Powys, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Edward Williams, tailor, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd, deceased intestate, d3's former husband. P seeks payment of a judgement for £1000 which he had obtained at KB ag E. Williams, who, before paying, died intestate in 1678, leaving his widow & administratrix, d3. P agreed with d3 that he & d1 (another creditor of E. Williams) would collect the debts. P now claims he deposited the articles of agreement with d1 & d3, but d1 conspires with d3 & her new husband d2 to receive the debts & defraud p of his £1000. D1 claims p went bankrupt & his creditors received his assets.
126. Temple v Clayton
P: (1) Thomas Temple, girdler, London, A. Temple's son & administrator; (2) John Temple the younger, vintner, London, A. Temple's son & administrator. D: (1) Sir Robert Clayton, knight, overseer of Lord Loughborough's will; (2) Francis Coles, Lord Loughborough's executor. C: (1) Whitlock Deane, counsel for ps; (2) Edward Ward, counsel for d1. Add: (1) Anne Temple, Ashby de la Zouche, Leics, deceased, ps' mother, widow & administratrix of John Temple the E; (2) John Temple the elder, sadler, Aderstone, Warw, deceased, ps' father, A. Temple's husband; (3) Rt. Hon. Henry, Lord Hastings, Leics, deceased, Lord Baron of Loughborough. Ps, administrators de bonis non of their father, J. Temple the E (deceased & unadministered by their mother, A. Temple, also deceased), seek payment of £601 19s which Lord Loughborough owed J. Temple the E since the Civil War for goods. Loughborough died in 1666, appointing d2 executor & d1 overseer of his will. Ps got a judgement at KB in 1678 which outlawed d2. D1 claims the debt is old enough to be barred by the statute of limitations.
|1685, Mich||E 112/594||Bill. LMX 325.|
|1685, Nov 25||E 112/594||Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer & demurrer.|
127. Thrompton v Gaell
P: (1) Susan Thrompton, Longborough, Leics, J. Monk's mother, sister of J. Ashton & E. Browne. D: (1) George Gaell, Hadley, Suff, W. Gaell's nephew & heir at law; (2) William Abell, W. Gaell's cousin & executor. C: (1) H. Kowes, counsel for p. Add: (1) Roger Gillingham esq., barrister, Middle Temple, London, d in original bill; (2) William Gaell gent., London, deceased, d1's uncle, d in original bill; (3) Henry Penton esq., barrister, Lincoln's Inn, Midd, d in original bill; (4) John Ashton gent., Westminster, London, p's brother; (5) John Monk, deceased, p's son, J. Ashton's nephew, executor & trustee of his realty; (6) Margaret Ashton, J. Ashton's widow; (7) Elizabeth Browne, sister of p & J. Ashton, J. Browne's wife; (8) John Browne, E. Browne's husband. P, a widow, seeks revival ag ds (W. Gaell's nephew & executor) of her 1682 suit in this Court ag R. Gillingham, W. Gaell & H. Penton, for possession of premises left by her brother J. Ashton (deceased in 1665) to his executor & trustee J. Monk (p's son, deceased) to pay an annuity to his widow Margaret (now deceased), & the reversion to go to p & her sister E. Browne (deceased). After the London fire of 1666, Monk conveyed the premises to his tenant R. Gillingham, to pay Margaret's annuity. J. Monk went bankrupt & his interest in the premises was sold to W. Gaell, who, with R. Gillingham & H. Penton, refused to assign p the premises. W. Gaell died & the suit was abated.
|1685, Hil||E 112/588||Replication. P's replication to (absent) answers of R. Gillingham & H. Penton (to original bill?).|
|1685, Hil||E 112/588||Bill of revivor. LMX 24; attached to E 112/588 LMX 23.|
128. Tooley v Tooley
P: (1) Jacob Tooley, woodmonger, parish of St. Sepulchres, London, d1's son, d2's brother. D: (1) Jane Tooley, mother of p & d2; (2) Elizabeth Tooley, p's sister, d1's daughter. C: (1) John Rowe, counsel for p; (2) Gi. Duncombe, counsel for d2. Add: (1) Ralph Harrupp; (2) Isabell Watson, J. Watson's wife; (3) Joseph Watson, hotpresser, I. Watson's husband; (4) Thomas Lilbourne, Offerton, Durh, deceased, d1's brother, uncle of p & d2. P seeks relief ag d2's suit at KB for payment of a £200 bond. P claims d1 (mother of p & d2) authorised him to receive £300 from R. Harrupp, retain £50 of it, & transfer the rest to I. Watson. D1 intended the £300 for d2's marriage portion, & lent £200 in I. Watson's possession to her husband J. Watson. D2 obtained from J. Watson a bond for the £200. P then borrowed the £200 from J. Watson, which d1 forbids him to pay to d2. D2 claims she inherited the £300 from T. Lilbourne, but d1 had her arrested for the bond.
|1685, Trin||E 112/589||Bill. LMX 61; dated 26 June.|
|1685, July 3||E 112/589||Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer.|
129. Troughton v Glenne
P: (1) John Troughton esq., Middle Temple, London, p2's husband; (2) Judith Troughton, Middle Temple, London, p1's wife, W. Zouch's daughter & administratrix; (3) Dorothy Duncombe, St. Pauls, Covent Garden, Midd, J. Wayne's daughter & executrix. D: (1) Mary Glenne, Chesthunt, Herts, T. Glenne's widow & executrix; (2) Edward Mihill, married to a daughter of d1 & T. Glenne. C: (1) Jo. Clapham, counsel for ps. Add: (1) William Zouch gent., solicitor, Lincoln's Inn, Midd, deceased, p2's father; (2) John Wayne, merchant tailor, London, deceased, p3's father; (3) Ralph Thorne, brewer, Hoddesdon, Herts, deceased, son in law of d1 & T. Glenne; (4) Thomas Glenne, brewer, Chesthunt, Herts, deceased, d1's husband. Ps seeks payment of a bill for £77 12s 2d + interest which T. Glenne (deceased) issued J. Wayne (W. Zouch's trustee, deceased) to redeem the goods of his son in law R. Thorne (deceased), who Wayne had sued in 1665 for a £100 bond Thorne owed Zouch (p2's father, deceased) since 1661. P3 (Wayne's daughter & executrix) sued d1 (T. Glenne's widow & executrix) in the Court of Common Pleas, but d1 & her son in law d2 claim T. Glenne had paid Zouch for the bill.
|1685, Trin||E 112/589||Bill. LMX 56.|
|1685, Trin||E 112/589||Copy bill.|
|1685, Nov 28||E 112/589||Commission. For ds' answer.|
|1686, Jan 6||E 112/589||Answer. Swearing date of ds' answer.|
130. Walbridge v Sparke
P: (1) John Walbridge, St. Hellens within Bishopsgate, London. D: (1) Edward Sparke, vicar, Tottenham Highcross, Midd, doctor in divinity; (2) John Baseley, Tottenham Highcross, Midd, p's tenant. C: (1) Ste. Crimet, counsel for p; (2) Giles Duncombe, counsel for d1. Add: (1) Sir Robert Hanson, Mayor of London, knight, deceased, sold premises to p. P seeks inj ag the suit in this Court of d1 (vicar of Tottenham Highcross) for payment of arrears of tithes from p's premises in the parish. P claims d1 possessed a strip of his land adjoining the vicarage, for which d1 promised to exempt him and his tenants from tithes. D1 denies possessing the strip or exempting p. P claims d1 conspires with d2, p's tenant, to make p pay tithes.
131. Waldrone v Goldsbrough
P: (1) William Waldrone, London, p2's husband; (2) Faith Waldrone, London, p1's wife. D: (1) Robert Goldsbrough, W. Goldsbrough's administrator. C: (1) Giles Duncombe, counsel for ps. Add: (1) William Goldsbrough esq., clerk of parliament, deceased. Ps seek payment of £25 which W. Goldsbrough (deceased) owed p1 for loans, board & lodging in 1683, and £20 which W. Goldsbrough owed p2 from before her marriage to p1. R. Goldsbrough became W. Goldsbrough's administrator, and reportedly claims the estate is insufficient to pay debts, or is now fully administered.
132. Walk v White
P: (1) Gregory Walk, merchant, London. D: (1) Bithia White, J. White's widow & administratrix; (2) Thomas Hull, attorney. C: (1) John Goodfellow, counsel for p. Add: (1) John White, scrivener, London, deceased intestate, d1's husband; (2) James Plumer. P seeks inj ag ds' suit for payment of £69 p allegedly owed J. White (deceased intestate in 1683). P claims J. White owed him £150 but that d1, J. White's widow & administratrix, sued him in 1684 in KB for payment for goods. P hired d2 as his attorney, and p & d1 issued each other general releases. P claims at d1's request he paid off a £100 bond J. White owed J. Plumer, but that d1 now sues him to avoid repaying the bond.
133. Walker v Banister
P: (1) Rebecca Walker, T. Walker's sister & administratrix. D: (1) George Banister gent., Leeds, Yorks, T. Walker's executor; (2) William Sawyer, merchant, Leeds, Yorks, T. Walker's executor; (3) Astruphus Danby; (4) William Pocock, merchant; (5) Giles Mathews; (6) James Windus, scrivener, spelled Windows in bill; (7) Robert Stamper, scrivener, spelled Stampert in bill; (8) Robert Christmas; (9) James Hutchenson; (10) Eden Spencer; (11) Elizabeth Hutchenson; (12) Thomas Burbury. C: (1) John Herle, counsel for p; (2) Will Helson ?, counsel for d4; (3) Thomas Fletcher, counsel for ds6-7. Add: (1) Thomas Walker, deceased, bankrupt, p's brother. P, sister & administrator of T. Walker (deceased in 1683) & a spinster, seeks T. Walker's personal estate, money & securities which she claims were entrusted to and possessed by ds. T. Walker appointed ds1-2 his executors, who refused to execute his will, claiming he had failed to pay his creditors a composition agreed in 1674. D4 claims he paid T. Walker's debt, & with d5 became bound for his bail. Ds6-7 deny being entrusted with T. Walker's money.
134. Walker v Hind
P: (1) William Walker gent., solicitor, Staple Inn, London. D: (1) Thomas Hind; (2) Thomas Reeve; (3) Anthony Warman; (4) Edward Warman; (5) James Belt, spelled Belke in his answer; (6) William Holland; (7) John Collett; (8) Charles Gilbert; (9) Edward Adams; (10) John Tilton; (11) Thomas Brinde; (12) Richard Blanchard. C: (1) Giles Duncombe, counsel for p; (2) N. Croft, counsel for ds3-7 & d11; (3) William Ettricke, counsel for d12. P, lessee of an ordinance of the Company of the Master, Wardens and Commonalty of the Mystery of Making Playing Cards to receive fees from the makers of pasteboard, seeks discovery of quantity of pasteboard made by the ds (members of the Company), and appropriate payment. Ds claim payment cannot be exacted from members themselves.
Alternative titles: Walker v Blanchard.
|1685, Easter||E 112/589||Bill. LMX 35; dated 13 May.|
|1685, May 21||E 112/589||Demurrer. D12's demurrer.|
|1685, Easter||E 112/589||Demurrer. Demurrer of ds3-7 & d11.|
135. Watts v Goddard
P: (1) Tomas Watts, blacksmith, London, p2's husband; (2) Joane Watts, London, p1's wife. D: (1) John Goddard, Boxtead, Suff, T. Windle's administrator. C: (1) William Martyn, counsel for ps. Add: (1) Thomas Windle, Long Melford, Suff, deceased. Ps seek payment of a £10 bond which p2 issued to the Crown (with other bonds between 1681–3) as security that T. Windle would pay an annual 50 shilling rent for a wine licence. Windle died without paying the licence so p2 was compelled to pay the £10 bond. D, Windle's administrator, reportedly now refuses to repay p2.
136. Watts v Tilliard
P: (1) John Watts, butcher, Westham, Essex. D: (1) William Tilliard the elder, Colebrooke, Midd, R. Tilliard's executor; (2) Robert Augur, butcher, Westham, Essex; (3) Alice Grane, d2's mother in law, also spelled Gray; (4) John Stone, attorney at law, New Inn, London, d1's attorney; (5) Richard Harvey, Westham, Essex; (6) John Browne, d7's husband; (7) Mary Browne, d6's wife. C: (1) Mo. Bramston, counsel for p. Add: (1) Richard Tilliard, Wansted, Essex, deceased. P seeks relief from the suit of d1 (R. Tilliard's executor) for payment of d2's debt for which p became liable when he (at d3's request) paid d2's bail after d1 had d2 arrested at KB for a debt to R. Tilliard, but d2 absconded without paying the debt. D2 later paid part of the debt with d5, but p claims the ds are conspiring to make him pay the rest.
137. Weston v Adson
P: (1) William Weston gent., Thistleworth, Midd. D: (1) Thomas Adson, vintner, innkeeper, Thistleworth, Midd, d2's husband; (2) Mary Adson, Thistleworth, Midd, d1's wife. C: (1) Paul Pulling, counsel for p. P seeks repayment of £20 which ds borrowed from him in 1683. D1 reportedly promised to issue p a bond as security, which ds now refuse to do, or deny they ever borrowed the money.
138. Whitehall v Peake
P: (1) Gilbert Whitehall, goldsmith, London. D: (1) Benjamin Peake, merchant, London. C: (1) Robert Brent, counsel for p; (2) G. Evan, counsel for d. Add: (1) Isaac Meynell, goldsmith, London, deceased; (2) John Grimes, goldsmith, London, deceased. P seeks inj ag d's suit for payment of remainder of £2000 bond issued in 1671 by p, I. Meynell and J. Grimes (both deceased). P claims he had only paid back £400 in 1684, but d promised not to sue for a year if p paid another £100. D claims p was also supposed to pay quarterly interest on the bond, and that p is well able to pay the bond.
139. Whitfield v Rackett
P: (1) Nathaniell Whitfield gent., parish of St. James, Westminster, Midd; (2) John Cove, jeweller, parish of St. Bridget, London, p3's husband; (3) Sarah Cove, parish of St. Bridget, London, p2's wife; (4) John Morgan gent., Cashalton, Surrey; (5) Walter Tandy, refiner, Cripplegate, London; (6) John Hinson, yeoman, St. Ives, Hunts; (7) John Halstead the elder gent., Woodhurst, Hunts; (8) Job Halstead gent., Woodhurst, Hunts; (9) Samuell Urhn, goldsmith, Cambs; (10) Robert Rawlins, yeoman, Cashalton, Surrey; (11) William Sallis, victualler, St. Dunstans in the West, Midd. D: (1) Michael Rackett, glassman, White Chapel, Midd, J. Rackett's nephew. C: (1) John Richardson, counsel for ps' bill; (2) Edward Ward, counsel for ps' replication. Add: (1) Robert Gregory, goldsmith, St. Giles without Cripplegate, London, deceased, J. Gregory's husband; (2) Jane Gregory, deceased intestate, R. Gregory's widow & executrix, previously J. Rackett's widow & executrix; (3) John Rackett, deceased, J. Gregory's previous husband, d's uncle. Ps seek payment of legacies willed to them by R. Gregory (deceased in 1684), who left J. Gregory (deceased intestate in 1685) his widow & executrix. J. Gregory lodged & died in d's house. D claims J. Gregory's estate came not from R. Gregory but from her previous husband, d's uncle, J. Rackett (deceased), who left her executrix of his estate in trust for his relatives. D asserts J. Gregory demised her estate to him.
|1685, Mich||E 112/589||Bill. LMX 74.|
|[1685, undated]||E 112/589||Answer. D's answer, undated, incomplete.|
|1685, Mich||E 112/589||Replication. Ps' replication maintains R. Gregory's estate is sufficient to pay their legacies.|
140. Wigan v Kerton
P: (1) William Wigan, clerk, vicar, parish of Kensington, Midd. D: (1) Richard Kerton, Kensington, Midd; (2) William Kerton, Kensington, Midd. C: (1) Edm. Gyles, counsel for p. P, vicar of the parish of Kensington entitled to small tithes & 1/2 the great tithes, seeks payment for arrears of tithes from ds who occupy parish land but have not paid tithes.
141. Wilkins v Webster
P: (1) William Wilkins, innholder, London; (2) Anthony Langford, victualler, London. D: (1) Grace Webster, E. Webster the E's widow & executrix; (2) William Brookes esq.; (3) Samuel Dodd esq.; (4) Matthew Petley; (5) John Johnson; (6) Thomas Foster; (7) Thomas Stoakes; (8) Joseph Anger, d9's agent; (9) Thomas Anger; (10) Ralph Bowes, E. Webster the E's brother & overseer of his will; (11) Uriah Bowes, E. Webster the E's brother & overseer of his will; (12) Samuel Webster, E. Webster the E's son; (13) Edward Webster the younger, E. Webster the E's son; (14) Ralph Webster, E. Webster the E's son; (15) William Webster, E. Webster the E's son; (16) Martha Webster, E. Webster the E's daughter; (17) Elizabeth Webster, E. Webster the E's daughter; (18) John Hill. C: (1) William Abell, counsel for ps; (2) Francis Browne, counsel for ds10-11 & d18; (3) William Brooke, counsel for ds8-9 & ds13-17; (4) E. Farnham, counsel for ds2-7. Add: (1) Edward Webster the elder, goldsmith, London, deceased, d1's husband. Ps seek payment of bonds totalling £400 owed to them by E. Webster the E, who died in 1675 leaving legacies to his children ds12-17, with d1 as his widow & executrix, & ds10-11 as overseers of his will. Ps claim d1 was to pay E. Webster the E's debts from a brewhouse, which she mortgaged to d18 instead. D1 went bankrupt at the suit of her creditors ds8-9, & a commn was awarded ag her to ds2-7, who seized the estate. Ds10-11 claim E. Webster the E owed them debts; ds13-17 deny receiving their legacies & claim the estate was small.
142. Williams v Cusson
P: (1) Elizabeth Williams, J. Williams's daughter and executrix. D: (1) Alexander Cusson gent., d2's husband; (2) Mary Cusson, d1's wife, H. Wells's widow and executrix. C: (1) Richard Holford, counsel for p. Add: (1) John Williams, stationer, St. Paul's Church yard, London, deceased, p's father; (2) Hugh Wells gent., deceased, d2's former husband; (3) Phillip Brace gent., solicitor, Furnivall Inn, London, H. Wells's trustee & overseer of his will. P, executrix of J. Williams (deceased) & a spinster, seeks cancellation of a £50 bond allegedly owed by Williams to H. Wells (deceased), whose widow and executrix d2 and her new husband d1 have obtained a verdict in the Court of Common Pleas ag p for payment. P claims the bond is 30 years old and has already been paid off.
143. Wilson v Walker
P: (1) Thomas Wilson, cordwainer, parish of St. Clements Dane, Midd. D: (1) Alexander Walker, distiller, St. Giles in the Fields, Midd, J. Beane's brother in law & administrator; (2) Alice Ryder, St. Pauls, Covent Garden, Midd; (3) Mary Hargrave. C: (1) John Twisleton, counsel for p; (2) E. Sabbs, counsel for ds. Add: (1) John Beane, cordwainer, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd, deceased. P seeks inj ag any suit of the ds for possession of goods & chattels p claims J. Beane (deceased) gifted to him. P, Beane's apprentice, claims he cared for Beane on his deathbed. D1, Beane's brother in law & administrator, claims Beane made a nuncupavit will leaving everything to d1 to pay his debts to ds2-3, & denies Beane was of sound mind if he made p such a deed of gift.
144. Winchester v Pigott
P: (1) William Winchester, porter, Serjeant's Inn, Fleet St., London. D: (1) Elizabeth Pigott, A. Pigott's widow & administratrix; (2) Nathaniell Pigott gent., St. Clement Danes, Midd, A. Pigott's son & heir; (3) Edward Griffin gent., Drury Lane, Westminster, London, C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for p. Add: (1) Adam Pigott, cutler, London, deceased intestate, d1's husband, d2's father; (2) Richard Audley gent., Hammersmith, Midd, insolvent. P seeks payment of £100 bond that R. Audley & A. Pigott issued p in return for a £50 loan in 1682. Audley went insolvent & absconded, and A. Pigott died intestate leaving d1 his widow & administratrix and d2 his son & heir, who claim A. Pigott settled his realty on d2 before p's debt, or that the bond is fraudulent, or the estate is insufficient to pay debts. P also asserts d3 conducted business in trust for A. Pigott.
145. Wolstenholme v Turner
P: (1) Sir Thomas Wolstenholme, Sir J. Wolstenholme's son & executor; (2) Thomas Wolstenholme esq., barrister, Inner Temple, London, Dr L. Wright's administrator. D: (1) Sir Edmund Turner, husband of Sir J. Harrison's daughter, farmer of the customs; (2) Richard Harrison esq., Balls, Herts, Sir J. Harrison's son & executor. C: (1) Henry Trinder, counsel for ps. Add: (1) Sir John Wolstenholme, deceased, p1's father, member of the House of Commons, farmer of the customs; (2) Sir John Harrison, deceased, bankrupt, d2's father, member of the House of Commons, farmer of the customs; (3) Sir Paul Pinder, member of the House of Commons, farmer of the customs; (4) Sir Thomas Dawes, member of the House of Commons, farmer of the customs; (5) Sir John Jacob, member of the House of Commons, farmer of the customs; (6) Lady Vere; (7) Dr Lawrence Wright, deceased, Lady Vere's trustee. Ps seek reimbursement of sums p1's father Sir J. Wolstenholme (farmer of the customs under Charles I, bankrupt & imprisoned during the Commonwealth) was compelled to pay as a signatory of bonds issued by Sir J. Harrison, Sir P. Pinder, Sir T. Dawes & Sir J. Jacob (also farmers of the customs) for £150,000 fine to the Crown. In addition, J. Harrison borrowed £50,000 from Sir J. Wolstenholme, who also repaid the farmers' £2000 debt to Lady Vere & her trustee Dr L. Wright (deceased). Charles II issued £200,000 compensation to the farmers, who refused to reimburse Sir J. Wolstenholme, who died leaving p1 as executor. P2 became L. Wright's administrator.
|1685, Trin||E 112/588||Bill (with attachments). LMX 23; mistakenly attached to E 112/588 LMX 24; schedule attached of Sir J. Wolstenholme's creditors; cf. E 112/589 LMX 58 Harrison v Wolstenhome.|
146. Wolstenholme v Turner
P: (1) Sir Thomas Wolstenholme, bart., Sir J. Wolstenholme's son; (2) Thomas Wolstenholme esq., solicitor, Inner Temple, London. D: (1) Sir Edmund Turner, knight, Sir J. Harrison's son-in-law; (2) Richard Harrison esq., Sir J. Harrison's son & executor. C: (1) Henry Trinder, counsel for ps; (2) F. Panton, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Sir John Harrison, deceased, farmer of the customs, d2's father, d1's father in law; (2) Sir John Wolstenholme, deceased, p1's father, farmer of the customs; (3) Sir Paul Pindar, deceased, farmer of the customs. Ps seek payment of sums allegedly owed to p1's father, Sir J. Wolstenholme, farmer of the customs. In 1641 Sir J. Harrison (with others) lent Parliament £50,000, with p1's father & Sir P. Pindar as surety. P1's father also acted as surety for bonds issued by the other farmers of the customs, who (with others) took out a commn of bankruptcy in 1653 ag p1's father for the bonds & seized his estate. Ps also claim the farmers retained Sir J. Wolstenholme's share of the reimbursement for the customs from Parliament. Ps have got a judgement at c1 ag Sir J. Harrison's son & executor d2 for the sums. Ds claim Sir J. Wolstenholme was justly liable for the customs.
147. Wordell v Chipp
P: (1) John Wordell gent., Totnam, Midd. D: (1) Thomas Chipp, chirurgion, Totnam, Midd; (2) Margaret Haynes, Christchurch, Hants, d1's mother in law. C: (1) John Danyell, counsel for p; (2) Edward Ward, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Elizabeth Bryant, Totnam, Midd. P seeks relief ag d2's suit for possession of p's mortgaged premises in Suffolk & payment of an £800 judgement. P, a prisoner in KB on a separate issue, claims d1, his former partner in the malt trade, retained p's profits & persuaded p to issue d2 (d1's mother in law) the mortgage & an £800 judgement in KB as security for a £400 loan. Ds allegedly never paid the loan, sold p's goods to E. Bryant & now sue p for the mortgage & judgement. Ds claim d2 paid p the loan, & that p owed d1 debts.
148. Worrall v Austin
P: (1) William Worrall gent., St. Giles without Cripplegate, Midd. D: (1) Jonathan Austin, husband of d5's mother; (2) Isaac Tayler, d5's next friend in answer; (3) Robert Clerke, d4's husband; (4) Frances Clerke, d3's wife; (5) Cressey Eaton, W. Eaton's nephew, under 21 years, with d2 as next friend; (6) William Bellamy, attorney, in the Sheriff's Court of London; (7) Leonard Scott, scrivener. C: (1) Ambrose Phillipps, counsel for d1. Add: (1) William Eaton gent., Luton, Beds, deceased, intestate, d5's uncle, M. Burton's brother; (2) Margaret Burton, W. Eaton's sister & administratrix; (3) William Foster, doctor of laws, judge of Bedford Ecclesiastical Court. P seeks relief ag any suits of ds for payment of bonds & a counter bond. In 1677 W. Eaton died intestate leaving M. Burton his sister & administratrix, & nephew d5 (a minor). D1, d5's stepfather, hired p to sue M. Burton in the Bedford Ecclesiastical Court for d5's share of W. Eaton's estate. P & ds1-2 issued W. Foster (the judge) 2 £100 bonds, & d1's indemnity of M. Burton ag future creditors of W. Eaton, in return for £102 (d5's share). £50 of the share was deposited with p, who issued d2 a £200 counter bond, & d5 a £100 bond. P claims ds threaten to sue him for the bonds.
|1685, Easter||E 112/588||Bill. LMX 17; documents damaged.|
|1685, April 20||E 112/588||Answer. Swearing date of answer of d2, d4 & d5 (with d2 as next friend).|
|1685, May 26||E 112/588||Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.|
149. Yardley v Say
P: (1) William Yardley, infant under 21 years, p2's son; (2) John Yardley, parish of St. Andrews Holborn, Midd, p1's father and guardian. D: (1) Robert Say, doctor of divinity, provost of Oriel College, Oxford; (2) Anne Hopkins, W. Hopkins's sister. C: (1) Paul Pullein, counsel for p. Add: (1) William Hopkins, city of Oxford, Oxon, deceased, A. Hopkins's brother. P1, under 21 years, seeks payment of £200 & an estate copyhold of St. John's College, Oxford, (left for him by W. Hopkins, deceased to his father & guardian p2 until p1's majority). W. Hopkins left d1 his executor & d2 his sister, who ps claim refuse to pay the legacy. D1 claims he is willing to lend the £200 at interest for p1 if this Court approves security to indemnify him ag any loss of the sum.
|1685, Easter||E 112/589||Bill. LMX 71; dated 1 June.|
|1685, Easter||E 112/589||Copy bill.|
|1685, June 1||E 112/589||Commission. For d1's answer.|
|1685, June 25||E 112/589||Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.|
150. Yoakley v Dandy
P: (1) Michael Yoakley, mariner, St. Katherine's near the Tower, London, T. Yoakley's brother. D: (1) Elizabeth Dandy, A. Dandy's widow; (2) Susanna Yoakley, T. Yoakley's widow; (3) John Rowse; (4) Margaret Coleburne; (5) Jacob Grove; (6) John Milward; (7) Hester Neflock. C: (1) Geo. Fetteplace, counsel for p; (2) Ro. Blayney, counsel for d1 & d7. Add: (1) Thomas Yoakley, deceased, p's brother, d2's husband; (2) Andrew Dandy, merchant tailor, London, deceased, d1's husband. P seeks relief from payment of a £25 annuity or £400 bond. In 1668 p's brother T. Yoakley (deceased) & his wife d2 demised a leasehold messuage in Debtford and a 1/2 share of a leasehold messuage in Stepney to A. Dandy (deceased) & his wife d1. A. Dandy leased the premises back to T. Yoakley & d2 for a £25 annuity with security of a £400 bond issued with d3. P owned the other 1/2 of the Stepney messuage & claims since T. Yoakley's death in 1677 he has mistakenly paid d1 the annuity. D1 claims d2 assigned T. Yoakley's premises to p in trust to pay d1 the annuity, & d1 has instructed p's tenants ds4-7 to pay the rent to her.
|1685, Mich||E 112/590||Bill. LMX 105.|
|1685, Nov 16||E 112/590||Answer. Swearing date of answer of d1 & d7.|
151. Young v Maggott
P: (1) Henry Young, St. Buttolphs, Bishopsgate, London. D: (1) George Maggott, brewer. C: (1) John Fisher, counsel for p. Add: (1) Mary Young, St. Buttolphs, Bishopsgate, London, p's wife. P seeks inj ag d's suit at the Court of Common Pleas for payment of an alleged £20 debt p owes d. P claims while he was overseas in his late Majesty's service, his wife Mary ran a victualling house, and bought beer from d for which she paid in full.