26 Auguſt, 14. Car. 2. 1662 BY Indenture of Leaſe and Releaſe, Charles late Earl of Warwick, upon the Marriage of his Son Charles Lord Rich with the Lady Anne Cavendiſh, now Counteſs of Exon, ſettled part of his Eſtate upon the ſaid Lady Anne for Joynture; and after Failure of Iſſue Male of the Body of the ſaid Lord Rich, as alſo of the Earl, limits a Term for 99 Years to Truſtees, to be diſpoſed of by the Earl by his Deed or Will: And for want of ſuch Appointment, then in Truſt for the next in Remainder, and then limitted the whole Eſtate in ſuch manner, as that a Third part of the Moiety thereof came to the Lord Bodmyn (the Appellant's Husband) in Tail General, with the Reverſion, in Fee to the Earl and his Heirs.

In 1673 The Lord Rich died without Iſſue, and the Earl of Warwick, by his Will, appointed all the Mannors and Lands to the Counteſs his Wife for ſo many Years, of the Term of 99 Years, as ſhe ſhould live, and to her Executors for One Year after her Death; and charged the ſame, from and after the Counteſs's Death, with ſeveral Annuities for Life, many whereof were in being at the time of Mr. Vanden Bemde's Purchaſe herein after mentioned, and Two of which are ſtill in being, one for 100 l. and the other for 10 l. per Annum; And the Earl ſhortly after, died without Iſſue Male.

14 & 15 Jan. 1676 Mr. Abraham Vanden Bemde, the Reſpondent Vanden Bemde's Father, purchaſed of the Lord Bodmyn for 5000 l. his Third part of a Moiety, and had it conveyed by Deed and Fine. The Counteſs of Warwick then living, a healthy Lady, and likely to live many Years, being but about 46 Years old; there being the ſaid Two Ladies Eſtates for Life in being, and the ſaid Annuities.

In 1678 The Counteſs of Warwick died, and after the Counteſs's Death, the Reſpondent Vanden Bemde's Father, for 4000 l. conveyed a Moiety to the Truſtees of the Reſpondent, Sir John Rotheram.

Note, That Robert Earl of Warwick (Father of Earl Charles) being ſeiz'd 16. Jac. I. acknowledged a Statute for 1000 l. to Thomas Bootteler, which Statute is extended upon the Lands in Queſtion; and that Statute and Extent was preſently (upon their Purchaſe of the Eſtate) purchaſed by the Reſpondent Vanden Bemde's Father, and Sir John Rotheram, and the ſame was aſſigned in Truſt for them: As alſo, the Reſpondents have the Term for 99 Years, aſſigned in Truſt for them to protect their purchaſed Eſtate.

The Appellant brought her Writ of Dower in the Court of Common-Pleas againſt Abraham Vanden Bemde; and although the Statute and Extent was a good Barr againſt her, from having actual Seiſin of Dower, as well as the Term for 99 Years, yet in a Court of Law, the Party pleading, can only inſiſt upon one ſingle Matter for his Defence: And therefore Mr. Abraham Vanden Bemde pleaded only the Term for 99 Years; and ſhe had Judgment, but to ſtay Execution till after the Determination of the Term for 99 Years.

20 May, 1686 The Appellant exhibited her Bill in Chancery againſt Mr. Abraham Vanden Bemde alone, to ſet aſide the ſaid Term and Extent. Whereupon the Lord Chancellour Jeffreys ordered that neither the Term or Statute ſhould be given in Evidence, or ſet up at Law to barr the Appellants Recovery of her Dower; for which purpoſe, upon her withdrawing her Judgment, Mr. Abraham Vanden Bemde was to withdraw his Plea to the Term for Years, and plead de novo.

But the Appellant never ſigned and inrolled that Decree, nor proſecuted the ſame, but reſted ſeveral Years without further Proceeding.

In 1692 She exhibited a Bill of Revivor againſt the now Reſpondent Vanden Bemde, as Heir and Executor of his Father, to which he anſwered; and thereby ſetting forth another Title as Purchaſer from his Father, by Virtue of the Agreement on his Mother's Marriage, ſhe diſmiſs'd that Bill; and in 1693. exhibited her Original Bill againſt both the Reſpondents, to which they pleaded their Titles: And upon hearing the Cauſe, the now Lord Keeper directed a Maſter in Chancery to look into the Matter of the ſaid Abraham Vanden Bemde's Purchace, and the Value of the Land, and ſtate a Caſe on the whole Matter. And upon the Maſter's Report accordingly made, my Lord Keeper, after long Conſideration had of the Caſe, and View of Precedents produced on both ſides, the 13. March laſt Declared, he ſaw no Cauſe to give the Appellant any Relief, but diſmiſs'd her Bill.

Upon which the Appellant hath brought her Appeal.

It is by the Common Law, that the Wife is Dowable where her Husband is ſeized in Law, in Fee Simple, or Fee Taile. But if the Heir at Law, or a Purchaſer, had any Matter that was a Barr to her at Law, ſhe never had any relief in Chancery againſt ſuch Barr: For as ſhe Claimed by Act in Law, where that failed, ſhe never could help her ſelf elſewhere.

It is a common Caſe for a man to make a Leaſe for Years of his Lands, before his Marriage in Truſt to attend the Inheritance, to avoid the Dower of his Wife, and alſo for a Purchaſer to have the Eſtate conveyed to himſelf, and a Friend in truſt for him, to prevent Dower: Which have always prevailed to barr the Wife of Dower, and never any relief ſought or given againſt ſuch Leaſes or Truſts. And if a Court of Equity ſhould take upon it to ſet theſe aſide, to entitle the Wife to Dower, many Eſtates would be ſhaken, and the Conſequence would be the cauſe of Suits and Controverſies in many Families, and prove very miſchievous to them.

Note, This Leaſe was made by Warwick, before the Appellant's Husband had any Title to the Eſtate; ſo it is ſtronger than if it were the Husband's own Act.

The Statute and Extent was purchaſed by the Reſpondents, and coſt 600 Pound, and is a good Barr of her Dower as Law.