Edmond Griffin, Esq; Apellant.  
John Lingard, Respondent.   The CASE of EDMOND GRIFFIN, Esq; upon his Appeal in Parliament.  
RIchard Griffin, 
July or August 1657.  the Appellants Father, in July or August 1657. conveys the Mannor of Bartherton, and all the messages and Lands therein to Jeffrey Minshall and his Heirs, and Edward Matthews and Henry coal, who had prior encumbrances joined in the same Conveyance; and though there be 2100 l. or some such great sum mentioned as the consideration; yet the same is defeazanced by Jeffrey Minshall to be a security only for 700 l. and on payment thereof to be reconveyed.  
Before this Conveyance the Appellants Father, 
May 25. 1655. Conveyance to Edmond.  viz. May 25. 1655. had conveyed parcel of the premises worth about 15 l. per annum, to Edmond Griffin his younger Brother, in recompense of 300 l. which he was to have for his portion wherewith the premises stood charged by a dead made by the Appellants Grandfather; which Conveyance, though prior to Minshalls, yet was subsequent to Matthews and coals encumbrances, and Minshall had also agreed, that all the Farms in Leases should be exempt from his Security; and though there were Words in his Conveyance to comprehend them, yet that was to take the Estate out of Matthews and coal, and therefore to prevent future mistakes.  
Jeffrey Minshall, 
Nov. 5. 1657. Defeasanse of Edmonds Land; and the Leased Lands.  by dead under his Hand and Seal, dated the 5th day of November, 1657. declares and agrees that no Lands were intended to pass to him, but only such as were in the Actual Possession of Mathews, at the time o● the Sealing his Conveyance; and that all Lands that were conveyed, or agreed to be conveyed to Edmond Griffin, in Lieu of his Portion, and all Lands then in Lease, should not be intended to pass by his Conveyance.  
Edmond Griffin accordingly enjoyed the Lands conveyed to him, and died about 20 years after; and then the same descended to the Appellant's Father, who enjoyed the same for his Life; and then they descended to the Appellant, who now enjoys the same, and the Rents and Services of the Leased Lands were enjoyed by the Appellant's Father for his Life, and by the Appellant since, who ought to have the Reversion thereof, as the Leases fall; which Enjoyment being near 40 years, makes a good Title though the Appellant had no other.  
That about the year, 1658. Jeffrey Minshall died, and his Estate came to Randal his Brother, and from him to one William Collington; and during their respective Times, several Accounts were stated, and Agreements made about the Redemption of the premises; but by Minshall and Collington's Contrivances, who aimed at the Estate, the same were rendered fruitless.  
Randal Minshall and Collington, 
Whatton's Mortgage, 1680. 1683. Lingard had notice of the Appellants Title.  in the year, 1680. mortgage to Whatton for 600 l. and about 1683. Whatton assigns to the Respondent, who sets off some Debts of his own, and advances a little Money, and makes it up 1000 l. and in the year 1683. not only took notice of the Appellant's Father's Title, and exhibited his Bill against him; but in Easter-Term, 1684. had his Answer, whereby he set forth his Claims particularly.  
Yet the Respondent, 
August 1687. Account  to clog the Estate, and make it not worth Redemption, pretends to advance further Money; And the 22d of August, 1687. an Account is pretended to be stated betwixt Collington and him; whereby Collington agrees, 1685. l. to be then due, and Charges the same on the premises to carry Interest from that time.  
The Appellant's Father died, 
Appellant's Father dyed, 1684. Appellant at Age 1689. Hearings Nov. 14. 1690.  1684. and his Right descended to the Appellant, then an Infant, against whom the Cause was revived; and the Appellant in 1689. attained his Age, and exhibited his Cross-Bill in Easter-Term, 1690. Whereto the Respondent answers, and confesses he had notice of the Appellant's Father's Claim, when he had lent 1000 l.  
Both Causes came to Hearing, the 14th of November, 1690. and the Court declared there was no sufficient proof of Notice; and therefore if the Appellant would redeem, he ought to pay the Respondent his Principle and Interest, due on the foot of the last Account with Collington, with Costs both at Law and in that Court, and did Order and Decree that the Appellant should before the end of the Term, give his Answer to the Register, whether he would redeem on those Terms; and in the mean time ordered the Respondent to give him a Particular of his Demands.  
By another order of the 15th. Decemb. 1690. 
Dec. 15. 1690. his Bill dismissed.  for default of the Appellants signing the Registers Book, to signify his consent to redeem on the Terms aforesaid, his Bill is dismissed, and he decreed to make farther assurance of the premises mentioned to be conveyed to the Respondent, by his Conveyance and dead of Mortgage,( wherein there are Words that comprehend both the Estate the Appellant hath, which was conveyed to Edmond Griffin for his Portion, and the Lands in Lease;) and this Appellant and his tenants are now prosecuted for the same. 
Exceptions against the Decree.   
The Notice is sufficient, and therefore the Appellant ought not to be charged with any Money advanced, after such notice; nor to be concluded by any account stated with Collington after that time.  
The Appellant though he redeem, ought not to be charged with the Costs that the Respondent hath disbursed, to support his own unjust pretensions; nor to be obliged to consent under his Hand to redeem on those Terms; neither ought his Bill for default thereof to be dismissed.  
Though he redeem not the premises, he ought not to be compelled to make any assurance of the Lands conveyed to his Uncle for his Portion, nor of the Leased Lands, these being exempt by the first Mortgagee, and the Appellant hath a good Title at Law to the same: And the Respondent is not deceived; for he is in possession of all that Minshall or Collington had, which was a sufficient security for what he had lent before notice.  
That after the Respondent had got this Decree, he gave the Appellant a note of 2220 l. 3 s. 4 d which he claimed as due to him, though by his Answer, three Months before, he swears to 1850 l. only.  
That the Appellants Father was kept constantly in Suits by Minshall's contrivance, on purpose to disable him from redemption, and was so cheated in this matter, that he never had 300 l. of the 700 l. and yet hath lost the profit of the Estate above 30 years; and the Estate is above 100 l. per annum, and is 1000 l. worse then it was, by Felling and Selling of the Woods and Buildings, and other wast done by the Mortgagee, and those that claim under him.