APPENDIX. 1802. THOMAS BOND, eldest son and heir at law of John Bond, Esq. deceased, and Henry Bond, eldest son of said Thomas Bond, a minor, by the said Thomas his father and next friend. ROSE HOPKINS, Joshua M'Geough, eldest } PLAINTIFFS. son and heir at law of Elizabeth M-Geough, DEFENDANTS.(a) and others. Dec. 15, 16, 18. Lapse of time shall not prejudice a person who has THE bill, which was filed on the 15th of June, 1792, prayed a discovery and production of all title deeds, muniments, and papers relating to the estate of Henry Bond deceased, the grand-father of plaintiff, Thomas; and that title, while seeking a dis covery of that title from persons who have possessed themselves of the evidence of it. Parties obtaining wrongful possession, and setting up a false title, (under colour of instruments finally condemned) during the investigation of which they are protected in their possession by the court, shall not avail themselves of any length of possession, pending the investigation, as a bar to the person who ultimately proves to have the right. The true meaning of the statute of Limitations, as applied to titles to land, is, that the party should have twenty years during which it should be open to him to pro ceed to assert his title. Though statute of Limitations does not apply in terms to proceedings in equity, yet such proceedings are affected by analogy to the statute: so that, in general, if a part be guilty of such laches in pursuing his equitable title as would bar him at law, he shall be barred in equity But equity will remove the legal bar proceeding from lapse of time, as it would any other legal advantage, if sought to be used unconscientiously. A bill filed in 1757 by H. pretending to be a devisee, charging that B. the only son of testator was illegitimate, and making M. a party (who in case of B's illegitimacy, was heir at law to testator): Issue of devisavit vel non directed; H. and B. proceed to the trial of that issue, M. taking no part in it: the issue found in the negative, and bill dismissed in 1770. On a bill filed in 1776 by B for the possession and title deeds, he has an equity against H's ever insisting on the will or the illegitimacy: and also against M's insisting on the illegitimacy, after having declined to contest it on the issue. (a) This case was, from sccidental causes, not ready for insertion in its proper place. 1802. BOND V. HOPKINS. a certain pretended will and codicils alleged to have been executed by the said Henry Bond might be brought into court and delivered up to be cancelled, and the plaintiffs quieted by a perpetual injunction against all suits at law brought or to be brought by the defendants, or any of them, for or concerning the premises: or in case the court should not think fit to grant that relief, that a proper trial might be had, under the direction of the court, and the plaintiffs have the benefit thereupon of the depositions taken in the several causes in the pleadings mentioned; and that the defendants might be restrained in the mean time from committing waste on certain lands called Bondville in their possession; and that the plaintiffs might be decreed to the possession of those and certain other lands in the pleadings mentioned: and an account of rents and profits: and that a certain decree made on 23d July, 1770, might be revived and carried into execution, and the plaintiffs have the full benefit thereof: and that all necessary accounts might be taken: and that this bill might be taken as an original bill, in the nature of a bill of revivor. And for this purpose it stated, that plaintiff Thomas Bond filed his original bill on or about the 26th of February, 1776, stating that Henry Bond, his grandfather, in and before the year 1754, being seized in fee of several freehold estates in different counties in Ireland, and also possessed of considerable chattel property, had issue an only son, Dr. John Bond, who went to America in the year 1753. During his absence, in November, 1754, his father died, and the defendants Hopkins and wife, Malone her brother, and several other persons who were employed in different capacities in the house, and about the person of Henry Bond, taking advantage of his son's absence, took possession of his house, and of all the personal property, title-deeds and papers therein. These persons set up a title under a pretended will and codicils of Henry Bond, alleged to have been executed by him some short time before his death, by which, after devising several small parts of his property to Dr. Bond, he was made to dispose of the remainder amongst the defendants; and particularly the house and demesne of Bondville to Henry Hopkins, the then infant son of Thomas and Rose Hopkins; and of this will Malone was appointed one of the executors. In 1755 Dr. Bond returned to Ireland, and got into possession of several parts of his father's property by attornment of the tenants, except the house and demesne of Bondville, of which the Hopkins' family continued in possession. Before the return of Dr. Bond, an ejectment had been brought for part of the estate by William M'Geough and Elizabeth his wife, who claimed to be heiress at law to Henry Bond, upon an allegation of Dr. Bond's illegitimacy. The bill charged this ejectment to have been brought in collusion with the Hopkinses, and with a view to procure a verdict against Dr. Bond's legitimacy, in his absence. Dr. Bond having been admitted to take defence to this ejectment, on the 34th October, 1755, he filed a bill for discovery and production of title-deeds and papers necessary to assist in his defence. Shortly after, another ejectment was brought by Roger Malone and the other devisees claiming under the alleged will of Henry Bond. In 1756 Dr. Bond filed an amended bill, for the purpose of discovering the practices used in obtaining this will, which he impeached as obtained by fraud and undue means. On the 19th January, 1757, a bill was filed by Malone, Hopkins and wife, and their infant son, Henry Hopkins, against Dr. Bond and M'Geough and wife, setting up this will, stating that Henry Bond was seised of the reversion in fee of these estates, subject to a limitation to his issue male; and charging his having died without issue male, and insisting on the benefit of the several devises in their favour; and they prayed that the will and several codicils might be established, the testimony of the witnesses thereto perpetuated, and the trusts thereof carried into execution, and plaintiffs decreed to the benefit of the seve ́ral bequests therein, and quieted in possession thereof by 1802. BOND V. HOPKINS. 1802. BOND V. HOPKINS.. injunction; and that Dr. Bond might be restrained from taking proceedings at law against them. Dr. Band, in his answer to this bill, impeached the alleged will, as obtained by fraud and imposition. An order was made, that the Hopkinses, who still continued in possession of Bondville, should give security for the rents thereof and on the 12th May, 1767, this cause coming on to be heard, an issue was directed to try whether the will and codicils set up were the real will and codicils of H. Bond. The cause was re-heard in April, 1768, upon an objection to the venue for the trial of the issue; and the decretal order affirmed. On the 7th Nov. 1769, the Hopkinses and Dr. Bond proceeded to a trial of the issue at the bar of the King's Bench, when a verdict was found against the will and codicils; in the trial of this issue M'Geough and wife did not join. In January, 1770, an application was made for a new trial, which was refused with costs; and on the 23d July, 1770, on a final hearing, the Hopkinses' bill was dismissed with costs. Shortly after, Dr. Bond obtained a forcible possession of Bondville, under pretence of executing an injunction, but was dispossessed upon a possessory bill. The present bill then proceeded to state that the several deeds and papers relating to the estate of Dr. Bond, in the possession of the Hopkinses and the other confederates, were handed over by them to their solicitor, and have since remained in the hands of his representative: that the costs decreed to Dr. Bond, were not paid; and that he becoming greatly involved, was thrown into prison, where he died on the 2d June, 1774; but previous thereto made his will, and thereby devised his estate to the plaintiff Thomas Bond for life, with a remainder to his first and other sons in strict settlement. Soon after the death of Dr. Bond a new ejectment was brought by the present defendants for recovering such parts of the lands as Dr. Bond had got into possession of; and in 1776 a bill was filed by plaintiff, Thomas Bond (then a minor) against Malone, the Hopkinses, and M'Geough and wife, praying that the pretended will and codicils might be brought into SH 1802. BOND v. HOPKINS. |