done under it shall be made void." 351 As a result thereof the Board in a December 9, 1719, representation advised disallowance of the act for its injustice, parroting West's reasons. 552 Accordingly the act was disallowed by a January 8, 1719/20, Order in Council. 533 Armed with this order, Richardson appeared in Philadelphia and demanded possession of the premises from Hamilton, but without success. Proceedings in the Court of Chancery in England were then commenced by Richardson in 1725, but because of the dilatory tactics of defendants, the matter was not brought to issue until 1733- 554 In the answer put in by defendant Hamilton, two points were insisted upon. First, that the act was not repealed or declared void pursuant to the powers reserved in the charter, viz., not within six months after transmission and deliverance or under the privy seal. Secondly, that even if the act had been repealed pursuant to the charter powers, defendant's purchase was valid, since it was made before the date of the Order in Council at a time when the act was in full force. 555 After a hearing lasting three days Lord Chancellor King, on June 8, 1733, decreed inter alia that defendant Hamilton deliver possession of the premises to complainant and account for rents and profits since entry ; with an allowance for repairs. 558 Among the notes of Charles Yorke on this case, employed in the arguments in Camm v. Hansford and Moss, 557 is the statement that, "his Lordship did not decree any reconveyance; which, taken together with the declaration in the beginning of the decree, shews that he held the act to be void." 558 But we find a variant relation of the cause in the Penn correspondence. It is related that Hamilton had claimed "that no Law of Pennsilvania had been regularly repealed, this the Lord Chancellor did not decide." Hamilton "could not prove himself the purchaser under the law made, and therefore my Lord gave it against him, as not having a title even under that law." 559 Penn's information came from Lord Wilmington and is consequently a layman's version of the proceedings. The text of the decree itself bears out the conclusions of Charles Yorke: "ye pit. Rebecca Richardson is well entitled for life to ye house and Lott of Ground .. . with Remdr [remainder] to ye pits, according to ye deed of ye 20th day of March, 1704." Hamilton is "to deliver ye possession of ye said House and Lott of Ground to be enjoyed by her during her life and after death by ye Pis. ye Infts. according to ye said Deed" and he was to account for "ye house and profitts of said premises since ye time of his entry thereon 551 lhid -. 474-76- 55f5 3 Stat, at Large Fa., 484; Add. MS, 552 Ibid., 477-78. 36,216/110. 553 Ibid., 469. 557 See Ms> 3 6 >21 8/ 3 8 ; 39 , 482. 558 ,4 go^j