same point as principal cases. one year's acquiescence in notia. Bill dismiped with costs.

ex relat. I. W.

ON the 9th September 1819 the Plaintiff agreed to Specific Per

altera

formance.

Bill by a Lessee, for the Spe

citic Perform

ance of an Gar- Agreement for a Lease, dismissed, because it was not filed until more than

let to the Defendant a House and Garden, for seven
fourteen or twenty-one years, at the option of the
latter, for a Premium of Fifty Guineas, and an annual
Rent of Eighty Guineas; to make certain
tions and improvements in the House and
den at his own expense; to procure permission,
the Ground-Landlord, for the Defendant to
a Coach-house and Stable on the Premises; and to
two years after
complete the alterations and improvements, and deliver the Defendant
Possession to the Defendants, on or before the 29th of had given
that month.

from

build

The alterations and improvements not being finished, nor the permission obtained, by the time agreed upon, the Defendant, on the 8th of October 1819, informed the Plaintiff, by Letter, that, if the alterations and improvements were not completed by the 14th of that month, he should give up all idea of taking the House, and look out for one elsewhere. And the Plaintiff having informed the Defendant that the Lease was at his House ready for signature, and requested the Defendant to name a time for executing it, the latter refused to execute it until the Agreement had been fulfilled on the Plaintiff's part.

The Bill was filed on the 1st of September 1821. The Defendant, in his Answer, said that, since he had refused to execute the Lease as before mentioned, a period of nearly two years had elapsed, during all which

Notice to the
Plaintiff of his
intention not to

perform the
Contract, on
account of the
latter not having
fulfilled it on
his part.

time the Plaintiff had retained possession of the House, and had acted as Owner of it. And he submitted that the Plaintiff had abandoned the Agreement and acquiesced in the Defendant's refusal.

By the Decree, the Master was directed to inquire and state whether any thing, and what, had passed between the Parties, or any person on their behalf, relating to the subject of the Agreement, after the Letter of the 8th of October 1819.

It appeared by the Master's Report, that nothing passed between the Parties, relating to the matter in question, after the 9th of November 1819, until the 17th of August 1821, when the Plaintiff's Solicitor wrote to the Defendant's Solicitor, requesting to know whether the latter would appear to the Bill.

The Cause now came on for further directions.

Mr. Sugden, and Mr. Treslove, for the Plaintiff.

Mr. Heald, and Mr. Sidebottom, for the Defendant.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR

As this Bill was not filed for more than two years after the Treaty had been broken off and the Defendant had refused to perform the Contract, and as the only reason assigned for the delay is, that the Plaintiff's Attorney had mislaid the Papers relating to the Trans action, I shall dismiss the Bill, but without Costs.

FITCH . CHAPMAN.

THIS was a Bill of Foreclosure against a Husband and

his Wife.

The Defendants put in a Plea of Usury, and intitled it as a joint and several Plea. The Plea now came on to be argued.

Mr. Horne, and Mr. Turner, for the Bill, insisted that

the Plea was irregular on account of its Title: because, as the Wife joined with the Husband in the Plea, it could not in any sense be considered as a several Plea.

Mr. Wray, for the Plea.

The Vice-Chancellor considered the term "several" as meaning nothing; and that, being mere Surplusage, it did not vitiate the Plea.

1824. 28th April.

Pleading.

Plea by Husband and Wife, intitled as a joint and several Plea; held, that the word " several" was mere Surplusage, and did not vitiate the Plea.

1824. 28th April.

Pension.

CLAY v. ST. JOHN.

THE Plaintiff filed this Bill to obtain payment of a Pension granted by His present Majesty to the DeThe Purchas- fendant, in continuation of a previous Pension of the

er of a Pension

granted by his same amount granted to him by the late King, and late Majesty, purchased by the Plaintiff in the year 1808.

during pleasure,

is not entitled

to a Pension

under a new

Warrant re

The Bill set forth a Warrant of the late King, granted by the under his Royal Sign Manual, dated the 12th of present King, to the same Per- August 1780, by which his late Majesty declared his son and of the Royal Will and Pleasure to be, and, thereby directsame Amount, ed that an Annual Pension of 1317. should be paid by the Commissioners of the Treasury unto the citing the Grant Honourable Mary St. John, the Widow of Henry made by late Majesty St. John, a Captain in His Majesty's Navy, to commence which had ceas- from the 5th of April 1780, and to continue payable ed by the Deduring His Majesty's pleasure; and, in case of her mise of the decease, to be in like manner paid to Henry St. John, (the Defendant,) the Son of Captain St. John.

his

Crown, though the Motive for granting both Pensions was the same.

In 1783, Mrs. St. John died. In March 1807, a Commission of Bankrupt was awarded against the Defendant, Henry St. John. The Assignees under that Commission caused this Pension to be put up for Sale by Public Auction, and described it in the Particulars of Sale as "a Pension from Government during the life of Henry St. John, (the Defendant,) then aged thirty-eight." The Plaintiff became the Purchaser at that Sale for the sum of 380l. An Assignment was thereupon executed by the Defendant, St. John, as well as by the Assignees, whereby the Pension of 1317. so granted by his late Majesty, and all Arrears and growing Payments thereof, and all Powers and Authorities for recovering the same,

and all Right, Title, Interest, &c. of the Defendant St. John, and his Assignees, to the Pension of 131 l. so granted, were assigned to the Plaintiff, his Executors, Administrators and Assigns. The Deed contained a Covenant by the Defendant St. John, and his Assignees, in the usual, terms for the better assigning and assuring the Premises to the Plaintiff, his Executors, Administrators and Assigns," and for more effectually enabling him or them to recover and receive the said Annual Pension or Sum."

The Defendant St. John, some time before the demise of his late Majesty, obtained his Certificate under the Commission of Bankrupt; and the Plaintiff, up to the demise of his late Majesty, duly received the Pension under the Assignment.

On the 1st of July 1820, His present Majesty granted a Warrant under his Sign Manual, in the following Terms:

George, R.-Whereas Our late Royal Father, of happy and glorious Memory, was graciously pleased to authorize and direct the late Paymaster of Pensions to pay unto Henry St. John, during his Royal pleasure, an Annuity or yearly Pension of 131 l. and which said Annuity was, in pursuance of an Act passed in the twentysecond year of his late Majesty's Reign, transferred to Our Exchequer, and payable out of his Civil List Revenues; and whereas the said Annuity or yearly Pension hath ceased by reason of the demise of Our said late Royal Father, and We are graciously pleased to give and grant unto the said Henry St. John an Annuity or yearly Pension to the like Amount, Our will and pleasure is, that, by virtue of Our general Letters of Privy Seal bearing date the 2d day of February 1820, you do issue VOL. II.

D

1824.

CLAY

2.

ST. JOHN.