The Case of Robert Walley. Concerning a Conduit-Head in or near Spittle-Fields, Humbly presented to the Consideration of the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and temporal, in Parliament assembled.  
By way of Appeal from a Decree made in Chancery, in a Cause wherein William Cutler signior was Plaintiff against the said Robert Walley Defendant, and a across Cause wherein Robert Walley was Plaintiff against William Cutler signior, and William Cutler Junior son of the aforesaid Wiliam Cutler, were Defendants.  
WIlliam the Father being interested in the premises for a term of about 30. years paying 10l. per annum Rents, did by Indenture dated 28. Feb. 1659. demise the same to Robert waly for 18 years at 40 l. per annum, for the first 3 years and 50 l. per annum for the latter 15 and gave a Bond of 200l. penalty conditioned that if at the end of the 3 years the said Robert should make it appear he could not be a Gainer paying 50 l, per annum, then he should hold it at 40 l. per annum, during the whole Term.  
Robert waly entred, kept possession, and paid the Rents to William the Father until.  
William the Father by writing under his Hand, 
27 April. 1661.  assigns all his Interest in the premises to William his Son, and soon after delivered the original Lease, by which he claimed the counterpart of Roberts Lease and other the writings concerning the premises unto him.  
William the Son thereupon demands the Rent, which Robert refused to pay, unless thereunto required by William the Father, whereupon,  
William the Father writs a Note, 
28 july 1661.  signs it, and sends it by his own man to the said Robert, acquainting him that he had assigned his interest to William his Son, and requiring him to attourn Tenant and pay his Rent to him: first paying the chief Rent of 10 l. per annum to Mr. Badger, who was to receive the same, Robert accordingly turned tenant, paid his Rent to William the Sun until,  
William the Father and William the Son being at difference, 
29 Sept. 1662. Mic. Term 1662 hilary 1662.  William the Father serds to forbid paying any more Rent to his Son, which order Robert observed whereupon,  
William the Son sued the said Robert at Common Law for the Rent.  
William the Father exhibits a Bill in Chancery against Robert setting forth he had lost the Counter part of his Lease, that Robert refused to pay his Rent, and he could not sue him for want of the Counterpart, prays he may discover whether he did not Seal such Counterpart and that he may be decreed to Seal a new one.  
Robert the same Term answers and sets forth all the matter aforesaid, confesseth the Rent in Arrears, and submits to pay it as the Court should direct, and exhibits a across Bill against Father and Son to have them interplead to whom the Rent did belong.  
William the Father answers, 
Mich. Term 1663.  therein confesseth the Note sent to Robert to atturn Tenant to his Son, confesseth the signing the Note, purporting the assignment to his Son, but saith he did it against his will at the importunity of his Wife, and her Mother, and intended it only for a present maintenance to him, whilst he should continue a dutiful Son: saith, his Son took all the Leases and Writings out of his Closer.  
William the Son answers, 
Mich. Term 1663.  setsforth the assignment, and the Note of direction to Robert waly, in hec verba, and saith his Father delivered him all the Writings that concerned the premises, and the Counterpart of Wallyes Lease, and sets forth the reason of his Fathers anger, because he refused to be bound with him for a great sum of moneys, which he refused because he was bound with him for many great sums, and had no collateral security, whereupon his Father turned him out of Doors. From hilary 1662. till a ter Trinity 1666. William the Father never proceeded in his cause, whereupon William the Son and his Wife and Children being ready to starve; Robert was advised by Council( he having the right) to surrender up his Lease to him and take a new one from him for the remainder of the 18 years, which he did do accordingly, and paid William the Son all the Rents in Arrears.  
After this in 1667. 
4 No. 1667.  William the Father proceeded in his Cause and brought the same to hearing, as also Roberts across cause, when a decree was made against Robert to Seal a new Counterpart, to pay William the Father all the Rent, Arrear, since Mich. 1662. and the growing Rent, and decreed William the Son, to deliver up all the leases and Writings to the Father.  
Of which hearing Robert had no notice, he leaving the management to William the Son who finding himself agreived with the said decree, petitioned for a rehearing, and  
Arehearing was had, 
29. April. 20 Caroli 2.  when the decree against waly was confirmed, but so much as concerned William the Son, his delivering up the Writings was set aside, all this time Robert had no notice nor knew of the hearing till the decree sigued and intolled, when,  
Robert being served with the said decree performed not the same, whereupon he was taken upon an Attachment, and examined to Interrogatories, and their swore the truth of all the premises, as also that he had not that Lease made by William the Father, nor could come by the same, it being burnt upon the agreement made with William the Son in 1666. which was long before the Decree.  
Whereupon the Master of Chancery proceeded to state the account of Rent in Arrears till March. 1668. Computed the sum to 113 l. The report confirmed, Robert served and paid the said 113 l. to William the Father; nevertheless is prosecuted to a Contempt, and to a Committment for not sealing a Counterpart of the Lease made by William, the Father, which is impossible for him to do; but he got the Counterpart of the Lease he hath from William the Son, engrossed, carried to William the Fathers Attorney, left it with him, offered to seal it but it was refused to be accepted by William the Father.  
Robert in pursuance of the Decree refusing to pay any more Rent to William, the Son.  
William, 
Mich. 1668.  the Son, brings an Ejectment against him wherefore he gave notice to William, the Father, to defend his Right, he neglected the same, and so Rebert was Ejected, and William the Son had Possession delivered him by the Sheriffs of Middlesex.  
William, the Father, since the Decree is become a Bankrupt, so that if he had any Right, the same belongs to the Commissioners of Bankrupts.  
Robert, being a Brewer, is forced to pay the growing Rents beforehand to William, the Son, otherwise must be ruined; by being kept from his water to Brew; Neertheless stands Committed for not paying the said Rent to William, the Father, whose Title cannot protect Robert in the Possession.  
And if he should pay to Father and Son, then must pay it again to the Commissioners of Bankrupts.  
But which is worst, if he pay to the Father and the Son, and to the Commissioners of Bankrupts: yet he is liable to Committment as long as he lives, for sealing the Counterpart of the Lease made to him by William Father.  
Upon these accounts Robert Appeals to the Supreme Court of Judicature, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, praying the said Decree may be Reviewed and Reversed, he relieved, proceeding on the Decrees stayed.  
Whereupon the Lords Committees for Receiving and Considering Petitions did in March 1669. grant an Order for staying the said Robert his actual Commitment, upon which Order, he hath ever since been kept out of the Fleet.  
It is observable that in Michaelmas Term 1669. William the Father, brought an Ejectment against William his Son, William his Son pleaded to him, the same Term Issue is joined, and the Son been ever since pressing the Father to come to a trial, but he refuseth the same, and yet presecutes the said Robert upon the Decree aforesaid.  
Why William the Son joined with Robert waly in this Appeal there is no Derce made against him, therefore the Appeal irregular, and not by proper parties and so ought to be dismissed. The Decree is against William the Son, in that he by his Covenants is liable to make good all the damages which Robert sustains by the Decree: whereby he hath been forced to pay his Rent to the Father which he had beforehand paid to William the Son.  
If two persons in Chancery complain, and at the hearing the Court find, that onely one of them hath a right to Claim, the Court in that case Decrees for him who hath the Right, and not reject the Bill, because one is joined therein who had no reason to pray Relief.  
Robert hath William the Son Covenant for his quiet enjoyment, and to save him harmless against William the Father; and William the Son having evicted him out of possession, he hath a remedy against him at Law, upon an Action of Covenant, and so may recover damages, therefore ought not to come into Parliament by way of Appeal.  
William the Son it is true, hath Covenanted for Roberts quiet enjoyment, but it is onely so long as Robert pays his Rent, and performs his Covenants.  
But Robert being Decreed to pay to William the Father, did deny paying to William the Son; whereupon William the Son, hath Ejected him out of possession, and yet there is no breach of Covenant in William the Son, the breach was on Roberts partin not paying his Rent, and so Robert cannot recover any damages at Law.  
There is a Bill of Review lieth which ought to be brought before the Appeal. And here is a great deal of new matter for new Bill.  
No Bill of Review can be brought, till the Decree be performed, which is to Seal the Counterpart of the Lease made by William the Father; this he hath not to seal, so can never perform the Decree: and therefore can never have a new Bill, or Bill of Review.  
The Court of Chancery hath already directed Sir. Thomas Eastcott Knight, one of the Masters of Chancery, If the Lease be lost, to settle a new Lease.  
It is true, there was such an Order, but they knew that Sir Thomas reported, that he did not find by Waslye's Examination, that the same was lost: for he had delivered it up to be canceled, to William the Son; and therefore he had forborn to settle a new Lease; and they as well know that Robert hath divers times moved to have such new Lease settled, and upon their own opposing, the Court hath denied to Grant it.  
Wherefore it is prayed the said Decree may be Reversed, or that Robert's Commitment may be set aside; And he admitted a new Bill or Bill of Review and be saved harmless in his payment to William the Son, since his Ejecting him out of the Possession, and until the Father recover the Possession by Law.