Holbech contrà. It must be conceded that there are authorities to show, that a lease by a rector is good during his life against him and those claiming under him; although in Revell v. Hart (a) the point was doubted; and in Frogmorton v. Scott (b) it was held that a rector might recover in ejectment against his lessee, on the ground of the lease being void by his own non-residence. But the question in this case is, whether the lessors of the plaintiff can recover against these defendants. In Errington v. Howard (c), a rector entitled to an annual stipend in lieu of tithes assigned it by way of mortgage, afterwards a creditor of the rector having obtained judg ment, and in the regular course a sequestration of the stipend, the Master of the Rolls held that the mortgagee should be preferred to the judgment creditor, but without prejudice to the 50l. per annum allowed by the ordinary for performing the cure. By this ejectment the plaintiff seeks to take the whole profits of the rectory. Suppose, in order to have the cure supplied, the bishop, without any writ of fieri facias, had sequestered, could this ejectment have been maintained? Then as to those defendants who were tenants to the former incumbents, there is sufficient to show that they became tenants to Finch. They have continued in occupation of the premises ever since, and a letting by Finch to them prior to the grant of the annuity may be presumed. They are not trespassers, but at least tenants by sufferance. 1826. Dog dem. against SOMERVILLE. 1826. Doɛ dem. CATES against Court. Having first stated the facts of the case, he proceeded as follows: Upon the first question reserved in this case, we are SOMERVILLE. of opinion that the lessors of the plaintiff, Jones and Hicks, had the legal estate in the premises in question, as executors of Wm. Hicks the trustee of the term granted for securing the annuity by the indenture of the 20th of December 1816. The statute 13 Eliz. c. 20. had been repealed before the date of this indenture, and the statute 57 G. 3. c. 99. had not then passed, so that there existed at the time no statute against the validity of this grant, and the grant consequently was good during the incumbency of the grantor. Upon the second question we are of opinion, that the persons who were in possession as tenants prior to the incumbency of Mr. Finch were entitled to a notice to quit. The occupiers in Bedworth had been in possession for eight months, and those in Meriden for nine months, between Mr. Finch's promotion and the grant of the annuity, and they had not been disturbed. After such a lapse of time, we think Mr. Finch must be presumed to have assented to the continuance of their tenancy under the same terms as before, and that he could not have dispossessed them without a notice to quit; and if he could not, neither could any person claiming under him. The verdict, therefore, is to be entered for the ten defendants who fall under this description; but, as against all the others, it must be entered for the plaintiff. No question properly arises in this case as to the authority of the bishop to place a curate in the parsonage house under a sequestration, and in the absence of the incumbent, because it does not appear that Mr. Somer Somerville or Mr. Bellairs had been placed in the houses by the bishop, or even that either of them had been nominated or approved of by him according to the provision of the sequestration. 1826. Dox dem. against SOMERVILLE. SOPHIA NYE, Spinster, HENRY NYE and CHARLES NYE, Infants, by the said S. NYE, their Mother and next Friend, against JOHN MOSELEY. THE Vice-Chancellor sent the following case for the A married opinion of this Court: of man, living in the same house with his wife, cohabited for In the year 1808 Sophia Nye became the servant John Moseley, and continued to live in his family in the six years with capacity of cook until the year 1812. John Moseley was at the time of Sophia Nye's becoming his servant, and has ever since continued to be, another woman, who knew that he was married, but until that time had con ducted herself with propriety and morality. At the ex piration of that time he ceased to cohabit with her, and gave a married man living with his wife, but had at the time aforesaid ceased to have sexual intercourse with his wife by medical advice. In the course of the year 1810 a cohabitation took place between J. Moseley and S. Nye, her a bond previously to which S. Nye had always conducted herself to secure an with propriety and morality; and she continued to live in J. Moseley's family, and to cohabit with him until the year 1812, when he provided and fitted up a cottage for her in the neighbourhood of his residence, and she removed to and resided at such cottage, and cohabited with him there till the year 1816. In the course of such cohabitation S. Nye was delivered of one child, and was at the determination thereof in a state of pregnancy, and has since been delivered of another child. In 1816 J. Moseley determined such cohabitation, and at the time annuity to her for her life, ment of a sum and the pay of money as a provision for her children, which she had borne to him during such cohabitation: Held, that an action at law might be main tained upon this bond. 1826. NYE against MOSELEY. of determining such cohabitation he executed a bond to the said S. Nye, conditioned for the payment of an annuity of 100l. to her for the term of her natural life, and for the payment of 500l. each to the said children at his death. The annuity is unpaid for one year. The question for the opinion of this Court was, whether the circumstances of the case afforded to J. Moseley a good ground of defence at law, to an action brought by S. Nye against him upon the bond to recover the arrears of the annuity? Storks for the plaintiff. An action at law is maintainable upon this bond, for the facts stated in the case afford no defence, unless it is to be laid down as a general principle, that a married man cannot contract an obligation to provide for a woman with whom, while he was a married man, he has illicitly cohabited. The general rule is, that a bond given in consideration of future cohabitation is void, but that a bond given in consideration of past cohabitation is good, Walker v. Perkins (a), Turner v. Vaughan (b), Lady Cox's case (c). Here, the consideration for the bond was past cohabitation. But it will be insisted in this case, that although the above rule be generally true, it does not apply to this case, because the obligor was a married man during the time he cohabited with the obligee, and she knew him to be so. The case of Priest v. Parrot (d) will be relied upon. There a bill for payment of a sum of money and an annuity secured by a deed-poll was filed by a young woman who had been seduced by a (a) 3 Burr. 1568. (b) 2 Wils. 589. married married man in whose family she lived as companion to his wife, and who by continuing to live with him occasioned a separation, and the bill was dismissed. It does not appear from the report of that case whether the bond was given to induce future cohabitation: here the bond was not given until the illicit intercourse had ceased. The object of the obligor was to make some reparation for the injury he had done to the woman, by providing for her and her children; and a man who does a wrong surely ought to have it in his power to make reparation. In Annandale v. Harris (a), the Marquis of Annandale having seduced an innocent woman, and having had a child by her, gave her a writing, obliging himself to pay her 2000l. after his death, for the purchasing of an annuity for her and the child for their lives, and performance of this agreement was enforced by a court of equity. It does not appear distinctly whether the Marquis was a married man during the cohabitation; but Lord Hardwicke says in that case, "If a man does mislead an innocent woman, it is both reason and justice that he should make her a reparation.” In Spicer v. Hayward (b) the plaintiff seduced his wife's sister, and had several children by her, and gave her some bonds for payment of money, as a provision for her and her children; and these bonds being put in suit, he filed a bill, suggesting that there was no valuable consideration for them, and the bill was dismissed with costs. In that case the plaintiff was married during the cohabitation, and the woman must have known it. The holding such bonds to be void will have a tendency to prolong the illicit intercourse, because it will then be 1826. NYE against MOSELEY. (a) 2 P. Wms. 432. (b) Cha. Prec. 114. K 4 the |