case gold versus Tancred march it be refer to a master to take the account  between a mortgagor and mortgagee under a bill of foreclosure his report be  confirm in the year Lord Hardwicke dismiss the defendant petition for a bill  of review as it appear the defendant agent attorney and solicitor attend the  settle the account on his behalf before the master which bind the party the  plaintiff be a mortgagee in possession of Mr Tancred estate bring a bill  against he to redeem or that he may be foreclose and it be refer to a master  to take the account he make his report which be confirm as long ago as the  year the defendant petition now for a bill of review upon three suggestion  first that the master in take the account have not make any rest or sink the  principal of the mortgage second that there be three year omission in the  account and three that there be matter come to his knowledge subsequent to the  master make his report though it exist at the time Lord chancellor this be a  very unfavourable application when the master report have be confirm so long  and where the defendant may proper have except to the report upon every one of  the suggestion which he now make for the bill of review it have be say by his  counsel to strengthen the application that the defendant be a unfortunate man  have lie in prison some part of the time and force to leave the kingdom for  the rest this be throw in to move compassion for all person in the defendant  case who be encumber be liable to such accident atkins and if I be to give any  weight to it a creditor will lie under very great hardship and the say invert  for a lender then will become a slave to the borrower here the defendant agent  attorney clerk in court c attend the settle the account before the master  which must bind the party or there will be no end of controversy and yet the  whole tendency of this application be that all may be set lose again this make  I say it be a most unfavourable application but however if justice be with the  defendant it ought to prevail the petition be upon three ground first that the  master have not make any rest or sink the principal atkins er p it be very  true the rule of the court in direct a account between a mortgagor and  mortgagee be that wherever the gross sum receive exceed the interest it shall  be apply to sink the principal Robinson v come ante but this be often attend  with great hardship to mortgagee where as in this case the sum be large pound  principal and the mortgagee force to enter upon the estate and can only  satisfy his debt by parcel and be a bailiff to the mortgagor without salary  subject to a account and therefore true say the master be not oblige for every  trifle small exceed of interest to apply it to sink the principal nor do I  know that the court have ever lie it down for a invariable rule that the  master must always in take such account make annual rest if a bill of review  be bring to reverse a decree upon new matter in such case the plaintiff in the  bill of review must have the leave of the court for fill such bill but there  be no need of leave if the bill of review be bring to reverse a decree upon  error appear on the face thereof vide Lord Bacon ordinance Wortley v Birkhead  post atk I take it this have always be understand to be the rule and the  course of proceed show it for when a bill of review be bring for error  apparent the constant method be for the defendant to put in a plea and  demurrer a plea of the decree and a demurrer against open the enrolment vide  dancer v Evett vern post atk so that in effect you can bring a bill of review  without have the leave of the court in some shape for if it be for atkins  matter apparent in the body of the decree then upon the plea and demurrer of  the defendant to the bill the court judge whether there be any ground for open  the enrolment if it be for matter come to the plaintiff knowledge after the  pronounce the decree then upon a petition for leave to bring a bill of review  the court will judge if there be any foundation for such leave the second  ground be that there be three year omit in the account by the master now this  be likewise error apparent and may have be except to and therefore fall within  the same rule with the other the three ground be that the matter come to his  knowledge subsequent to the master make his report and this be a proper ground  for a bill of review suppose the evidence come up to it but it turn out quite  otherwise this be so the petition must be dismiss