the joint and several answers of Thos Morgan and Benedict Growte defendants to the bill of complaint say that Wm Edees in the bill named the complainant's late father about 15.2.1599 made his last will in writing and thereby devised sundry legacies to his wife and to the complainant's children and the children of these defendants by the daughters of the testator and grandchildren to the testator and also devised to the complainant a legacy of 40s and to other legacies and to the same his will made these two defendants executors as by his last will whereby these defendants for the better expressing of the certainty of and in the premises refer themselves as may appear and after Wm Edees the testator died possessed of divers goods and chattels but not to any such value as by the bill of complaint is suggested for the defendants say that all goods and chattels which Wm Eedes had and was possessed of at the time of his death which came to their hands as executors to Wm Eedes did not amount to the value of 100li and the defendants have hitherto paid and delivered all the legacies due to be paid and intend truly to pay and deliver the residue as they shall become due to be paid and truly to perform the will according to the true intent and meaning of the testator expressed and declared in and by the will and they expressly deny that Wm Eedes the testator the complainant's father did to their knowledge become bounden to the complainant by obligation of 200li or in any other sum or sums of money to their knowledge with condition to pay the complainant 100li or any other sum or sums whatsoever or that any such obligation or bond did at any time come to their or either of their hands or possession and touching the pretended promise supposed to be made by Wm Eedes the testator at or before the intermarriage of the complainant with Mary his now wife daughter of Hen Pullen in the bill named they for answer say that Wm Eedes made not to their knowledge any such promise and that Benedict Growte says that Wm Eedes the testator having by a fall or by some other casualty broken or hurt his leg at such time he should have met about some treaty or speech of the marriage did entreat Benedict Growte to go over to Hen Pullen's house with the complainant and to see Mary and to have some speech with Hen touching the marriage but Benedict expressly denies that he was willed or required by Wm Eedes the testator to signify unto Hen Pullen that for every groat that Hen would make his daughter worth in marriage to the complainant he Wm the testator would make the complainant worth sixpence for Benedict says that Wm Eedes the testator had not any speech with him Benedict of any promise or portion or matter to be by him given paid or performed neither did the defendants know what portion the complainant had in marriage with his wife and the defendants do also deny that Benedict was named executor with the intent that he might be able to perform the pretended promise but say that the testator made not any such promise to the knowledge of these defendants and whereas the complainant has in and by his bill of complaint further alleged and suggested that Wm Eedes the testator did charge the defendants especially Growte to see the marriage portion and the 100li to be duly paid and performed to the complainant the defendants answer and either of them say that Wm the testator at no time had any speech with them or either of them of or concerning the same they are the rather induced to think and believe that the testator made not any such bond or promise as in the bill suggested for the complainant had by his undutiful behaviour and carriage towards his father procured his father's dislike and displeasure and the testator would have as these defendants think expressed the same in his will if there had been any such promise made or intended by the testator whereas also the complainant has in and by his bill of complaint further alleged that the complainant had certain goods and household stuff to the value of 10li or 20marks remaining in the house where his late mother died at the time of her death and that these defendants did by the colour of the executorship take the same goods into their possession and do detain and convert them to their own proper use the defendants for answer says that the complainant had not any such goods there to th eir knowledge neither did they take any of the complainants goods into their possession and yet they do confess that they had after the decease of Margt certain household stuff from the house wherein the complainant's mother dwelt at the time of her death the use and occupation of which household stuff was devised and limited to Margt by the last will of Wm Eedes the testator and these defendants do deny that Wm Eedes the testator willed them at the time of his sickness to send for the complainant or did deliver any money to them to pay the messenger or that these defendants or either of them gave the messenger =s to stay at home or that they did the like at the death of the complainant's mother or that Margt the complainant's mother to their knowledge had ready in a bag any such (torn) money as by the bill of complaint is alleged without that the testator in the knowledge of the defendants became bounden to the complainant in and by an obligation of 200li as in and by the bill of complaint or that the testator did signify unto Hen Pullen that for every (torn) the said Hen Pullen would make his daughter worth in marriage to the complainant he the testator Wm Eedes would make the complainant worth six (torn) that the testator left or that there came assets in and to the hands of the defendants to satisfy and pay as well the complainant's pretended portion as all other the legacies owing given and bequeathed by the will with a large overplus as in and by the bill of complaint is alleged and without any other matter or thing etc they ask to be dismissed with reasonable costs