transport, transfer or conveyance enclosed in the said written communication. And to the authority of the said James Duane, John Jay, William Duer, John Rutherford, and James Farquhar; and also so much thereof as relates to the intent of the said communication-these defendants do plead in bar and say, that her late majesty Anne, then Queen of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, being in the possession and occupation of all that certain tract or parcel of land then known by the name of the Duke's Farm, King's or Queen's Farm, situate in the city of New-York, referred to in the said bill, and bounded as is therein specified, and of which the lands called the Dominie's Bowery in the said bill mentioned are parcel, and being in receipt of the rents and profits thereof to her own sole and separate use and benefit, did by certain letters patent under the great seal of the then province of New-York, bearing date the twenty-third day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and five, in the said bill referred to, which said letters patent under the seal aforesaid, bearing date the same day and year last aforesaid, are in the possession of the defendants, the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, in the city of New-York, ready to be produced to this honourable court, give, grant, ratify, and confirm unto these defendants, the Rector, &c. of, &c., in, &c., by their then corporate name of the Rector and Inhabitants of the city of New-York, in communion of the church of England, as by law established, and to their successors forever, among other lands therein described, all that said parcel of land then known by the name of the Duke's Farm, King's Farm, or Queen's Farm, together with the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging and appertaining, excepting and reserving all gold and silver mines, to be had and holden unto them, the Rector and Inhabitants of the city of New-York, in communion, &c., and their successors for ever. To be holden of her said majesty, her heirs and successors in free and common socage, as of her manor in East Greenwich, in the county of Kent, in her said kingdom of England. Yielding and praying therefor yearly and every year unto her said majesty, her heirs and successors, at the said city of New-York, to her collector and receiver-general there, for the time being, in the feast of the nativity of our blessed Saviour, the yearly rent of three shillings of current money, in lieu and instead of all other rents, services, dues, duties, and demands whatsoever.

And these defendants further say, that under and by virtue of the said letters patent, and not otherwise, these defendants, the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of, &c., in, &c., by their then corporate name therein mentioned, did, on the day of the date of the said letters patent, enter in and upon, and become seized in their demesne as of fee, of the said parcel of land and premises therein called the Duke's Farm, King's Farm, and Queen's Farm, including the said premises in said bill designated by the name of Dominie's Bowery; claiming by force and virtue of the said letters patent, and not otherwise, to be of right sole and exclusive owners of the same, and of every part thereof in fee simple; and as such owners, to be of right entitled so to enter upon and become seized and possessed thereof as aforesaid. And

further, that these defendants, the Rector, &c., of, &c., in, &c., by themselves, under one or other of their corporate names in the said bill mentioned, and those claiming under them, the said last mentioned defendants, from the said day of such their entry as aforesaid, upon the said parcel of land and premises so called the Duke's Farm, King's Farm, or Queen's Farm, continually down to the present time, have been in the uninterrupted, sole, exclusive and actual seizin and possession of the said premises called the Dominie's Bowery, in the said bill mentioned, and every part and parcel thereof, claiming to have and hold the same, as sole and exclusive owners thereof in fee simple; and during the whole of that time have been in the sole and exclusive receipt and enjoyment of the rents, issues, profits, avails and proceeds thereof, and of every part thereof, to their own sole and separate use and benefit; claiming to be of right entitled to receive and enjoy the same, and without having paid over or accounted for to the complainant, or any or either of those persons under whom he by his bill claims to derive title, any part of the said rents, issues, profits, avails or proceeds, and without having ever at any time or in any time, by any of their corporate names aforesaid, or otherwise, held or possessed the said last mentioned premises, or any part or parcel thereof, or any estate, right, title, or interest therein, or any rents, issues, profits, avails or proceeds of, or arising out of the same, or any part thereof, in common and undivided with, or as trustee of the complainant, or of any other person or persons under whom he by his said bill claims to derive title; and without having ever acknowledged or admitted that the said corporation was bound either in law or equity to pay over or account for any part of the said rents, issues, profits, avails or proceeds, to the said complainant, or any person under whom he so claims to derive title, and without having admitted or acknowledged themselves, or by their agents, or otherwise, that the said complainant, or those under whom he so claims to derive title, had any estate, share or interest, claim or demand whatsoever in or to the said last mentioned premises, or any part thereof, or in or to any rents, issues, profits, avails or proceeds of, or arising out of the same. All which matters and things these defendants do aver and plead to so much of the complainant's said bill as is not herein before particularly excepted; and humbly crave whether they shall make any further answer to so much of the said bill as is hereby pleaded to.

And these defendants not waiving their said plea, but relying thereon for answer to the residue of the said bill and in support of their said plea say, that they deny that these defendants, the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, in the city of New-York, have ever at any time, by any of their coporate names mentioned in the said bill, entered upon the said premises in the said bill designated by the name of the Dominie's Bowery, or any part or parcel thereof, under the instrument of transport, transfer, or conveyance, mentioned in the said bill, or under any of the children or heirs of Aneke Bogardus therein named, or ever at any time by themselves, or by any agents, claimed to hold, or possess, or derive title to the same, or any part or parcel thereof, under the said instrument of transport, transfer, or conveyance thereof, under any of the said children or heirs, or any deed of confirmation to them, or any of them, as in the said bill is alleged.

And these defendants, further answering, deny, that these defendants, the Rector, &c., of, &c., in, &c., by any or either of their coporate names aforesaid, or otherwise howsoever, became seized, or have ever, at any time, held or possessed the said last mentioned premises, or any part or parts thereof, or any estate, right, title, or interest therein, or any rents, issues, profits, avails, or proceeds of, or arising out of the same, or any part thereof, in common and undivided with, or in trust, or for the use and benefit of the complainant, or any other person or persons being, or claiming, or pretending to be the child or children, heir or heirs, descendant or descendants of the said Aneke Bogardus. And these defendants do expressly deny that these defendants, the Rector, &c., of, &c., in, &c., by and of their corporate names aforesaid, or otherwise howsoever, have ever, at any time, paid over to, or accounted with, the complainant, or those under whom he claims title by the said bill, for any part of the said rents, issues, profits, avails, or proceeds, or ever acknowledged or admitted that they were bound either in law or equity, to pay over or account for any part of the said rents, issues, profits, avails, or proceeds to the said complainant, or any person under whom he so claims title, or ever in any manner admitted or acknowledged that the said complainant, and those under whom he so claims title, had any right, title, estate, or interest whatsoever, in or to any part of the said last mentioned premises, or in or to the said rents, issues, profits, avails, or proceeds, or any part thereof.

And these defendants further answering, deny, that the said complainant, or any of his ancestors, or any descendant of the said Aneke Bogardus, ever entered upon or became seised of any estate, interest or share in common and undivided with these defendants, the Rector, &c., of, &c., in, &c., under any of their coporate names aforesaid, of or in the said last mentioned premises, or any part thereof, or that said Cornelius, the grandson of the said Aneke Bogardus, ever took any of the explees and profits thereof in common with these defendants, the Rector, &c., of, &c., in, &c., under any of their corporate names aforesaid, as in the said bill is alleged.

And these defendants, further answering, say, that they have heard and believe, that James Duane, John Jay, William Duer, John Rutherford, and James Farquhar did at the time, for this purpose mentioned in the said bill, make an original written communication, in the form of a letter, addressed by them to William Malcolm and Jacob Bogardus, as agents for the claimants of Dominie's Hook, under the heirs of Aneke Bogardus. And these defendants do believe and admit, that there was enclosed in the said communication a copy of the record of transport, transfer, or conveyance to Francis Lovelace, set forth in the said bill, and certified as is therein charged, and that the several names of the said James Duane, John Jay, William Duer, John Rutherford, and James Farquhar, were respectively subscribed to the said communication in the proper handwriting of each of them respectively.

And these defendants, further answering, say, that they are ignorant, and unable to answer, whether the said communication was so subscribed by the said James Duane, John Jay, William Duer, John Rutherford and James Farquhar, as a committee of Trinity Church for managing their controversy with the heirs of Aneke Bogardus, as is charged in the said bill, or how other

wise the same was subscribed; but they believe and admit, that in all other particulars the contents of the said written communication, so far as the same is set forth in the said bill, are therein truly set forth; and that the said communication and enclosed copy of record are in the possession of one of the counsel of certain of the heirs claimants under the said title of the said Aneke Bogardus, as is mentioned in the said bill.

And the defendants, further answering, say, that the said James Duane, John Jay, William Duer, John Rutherford and James Farquhar, were a committee of the Vestry of the said corporation, to defend the rights of the said corporation to a claim to part of the said estate of the said corporation, theretofore called the Duke's Farm, King's Farm, or Queen's Farm, then recently set up by the said William Malcolm and Jacob Bogardus, as such agents, and on behalf of the said heirs; but these defendants have no knowledge or belief that the said James Duane, John Jay, William Duer, John Rutherford and James Farquhar, or either of them, then had any other authority in the premises from the defendants, the Rector, &c., of, &c., in, &c., under that or any other corporate name than such as necessarily resulted from it, was included in their general appointment as such committee; and these defendants submit to this court, whether such general authority authorized the said committee, or either of them, to communicate to the said William Malcolm and Jacob Bogardus, as such agents, the certified copy of the instrument of transport, transfer or conveyance in the said bill alleged to have been enclosed in the said written communication. And these defendants further say, that whether in the said written communication the said committee intended to refer to the one or the other two pieces or parcels of land severally referred to in the said bill by the name of Dominie's Hook, or Dominie's Bowery, they are wholly ignorant and unable to answer; but they do admit that the said committee, when speaking of Dominie's Hook, as having been granted by government to Trinity Church, referred to and intended thereby the settlers' patent and grant of Queen Anne, of the said tract or parcel of land called the Duke's Farm, King's Farm, or Queen's Farm, in the said bill mentioned.

And these defendants, further answering, do deny, that the said James Duane, John Jay, William Duer, John Rutherford and James Farquhar, were in any manner or upon any occasion whatever, ever authorized by these defendants, the Rector, &c., of, &c., in, &c., under or by virtue of their corporate names aforesaid, to claim or set up by way of communication to the agents of the aforesaid claimants or otherwise, that these defendants, the Rector, &c., of, &c., in, &c., under any of their corporate names aforesaid, had or held, or claimed to have or hold, then or at any other time, any part or parcel of the said premises called the Dominie's Bowery, or any right, share, interest or title therein under the instrument of transport, transfer or conveyance, the certified copy of the record whereof was so as aforesaid enclosed in the said communication, or under any of the parties named as grantors in the said instrument. And the defendants do also expressly deny, that by the said communication, or otherwise, the said James Duane, John Jay, William Duer, John Rutherford and James Farquhar, did claim, or intend to claim, that these defendants, the Rector,

&c., of, &c., in, &c., by that or any other of their corporate names, held or possessed any part or parcel of the said last mentioned premises, or any right, share, title or interest therein, under the instrument of transport, transfer or conveyance, or under any of the parties named as grantors in the said instru

ment.

And these defendants deny all, and all manner of unlawful combination and confederacy, charged in the said bill, and humbly pray to be hence dismissed, with their reasonable costs in this behalf most wrongfully sustained.

No. 90.-Page 224.

ORDER FOR PLEA TO STAND FOR AN ANSWER.

(Title-ante, No. 13.)

At, &c. (No. 13.) The plea of the defendant J. T. to the bill of complaint in this cause, having heretofore come on to be argued before the chancellor, and counsel on both sides having been heard thereupon, it is ordered that the said plea do stand for an answer, with liberty for the plaintiff to except thereto.

(Title.)

No. 91.-Page 224.

ORDER OF REFERENCE OF PLEA OF FORMER SUIT, &c.

At, &c. (See No. 13.) A plea having been filed in this cause, averring, that there is a former suit depending in this court for the same matters as are involved in the present suitthereupon, on motion of W. Slosson, solicitor for the defendant A. B., it is ordered, that it he referred to one of the masters of this court,

to look into the bill and into the defendant's plea, and the bill in the said plea mentioned to have been exhibited by the plaintiff against the defendant, and the proceedings therein, and to certify whether the said bill formerly exhibited is for the same matters as the complainant's bill in this cause, and whether the same is now depending.

(3 Br. C. C., 544. Shotwell v. Fox. W. Slosson, Sol. Rule 48.)

No. 92.-Page 228.

ANSWERS.

Title of.-(Single defendant.)

The answer of A. B., defendant, to the bill of complaint of C. M., com

plainant.