atkins case sir John Robinson versus come October if a person who make address  on a view of marriage and a reasonable expectation of success give present and  the lady deceive he afterward the present ought to be return or the value of  they allow but where make to introduce a person only to a woman acquaintance  he be look upon in the light of a adventurer and if he lose by the attempt  must take it for his pain especial where there be a disproportion between the  lady fortune and his it come before the chancellor upon exception to a master  report who have allow the defendant pound the value of present he have make  former to the plaintiff wife the case which the defendant make be this that he  be a particular friend of Mr sheffields the grandfather of mrs Robinson who be  about sixteen at the time of his death and make her several valuable present  and that Mr Sheffield by his will have express devise his whole estate to the  defendant in case he shall marry his grandaughter which show that he approve  of the match and have likewise make he executor the plaintiff insist that the  defendant have insinuate himself too much into the favour of this old man and  that the young lady have never give he the least encouragement as his  circumstance be by no mean equal to she she be a very great fortune and he  have only pound per and at most Lord chancellor I think in case of this nature  these rule may be lie down that if a person have make his address to a lady  for some time upon a view of marriage and upon reasonable expectation of  success make present to a considerable value and she think proper to deceive  he afterward it be very right that the present atkins er p themselves shall be  return or the value of they allow to he but where present be make only to  introduce a person to a woman acquaintance and by mean thereof to gain her  favour I look upon such person only in the light of a adventurer especial  where there be a disproportion between the lady fortune and his and therefore  like all other adventurer if he will run risk and lose by the attempt he must  take it for his pain the defendant case upon all the circumstance be a good  deal of this sort I be of opinion the master ought not to have allow he the  value of the present and therefore the plaintiff be right in the exception  there be other exception in the same cause atkins at the time of the decree  the court direct that Mr come shall be allow upon his oath such sum as he have  expend in a cause relate to Mr sheffields will a exception be take to the  affidavit that it be too lose Mr come swear only that he have expend the  several sum contain in his account to the best of his knowledge remembrance  and belief and that in several of the item he do pot mention the time it be  pay nor to who or for what the sum be pay Lord chancellor the exception must  be allow because where at law a person upon a account be allow sum under S on  his oath it be not sufficient that he swear to his belief only but he must  swear to the fact so in direction under a decree that the person upon a  account shall be allow such sum as he swear he have actual expend it be not  sufficient as in this case that he believe he pay they but he must peremptory  swear to the fact though a master under such direction as in this decree have  a imply power of settle the affidavit the person be to make yet to put it out  of all doubt will specify it now and will also direct the master to review his  report and to give Mr come a opportunity of clear up the doubt that arise upon  the account another exception that Mr come in his account ought to have make  annual rest and that from time to time he shall have apply the asset as they  come in to pay off some part of the principal and interest due upon his own  bind and not charge a gross sum in one item for fifteen year interest Lord  chancellor in the common direction for take a account of the rend and profit  of real estate the court have direct annual rest to be make but not in account  of personal for if a mortgagee enter into possession of the estate he do by  his own act render himself Accountable for what he receive in discharge of his  principal and interest and it be in this case that the direction of annual  rest be make gold v Tancred post atkins but if a mortgagor come with only half  the debt and offer it to the mortgagee he be not oblige to take it the present  case of a executor be quite different for it be not a office of his own seek  but very proper that somebody either as executor or administrator shall  collect in the asset and if he happen to be a bondcreditor himself the court  never direct that if any sum come into his hand that he shall from time to  time by piecemeal discharge the principal and interest of his bind for he may  first discharge all other demand against his testator estate before his own  and unless it have appear that a considerable sum be leave in his hand  sufficient to pay off his bind entire over and above what be due upon other  demand there can be no ground for this exception and therefore overrule it as  to what Mr attorney general say that upon a plene to manage if it have appear  there be enough only to pay half the debt in the executor hand the jury must  have find a verdict against he it can be support for no court will have direct  a jury to give such a verdict because a executor by a establish rule of law  may retain to pay his own debt but be not oblige to take in part only roll a  br l pl Mod the defendant take a exception that the master have not allow he  any interest on two year and a half arrear of a annuity which he have purchase  of the testator Mr Sheffield it be a grant of a annuity by way of mortgage and  a power to the annuitant to enter in case of arrear and to bold till he be  satisfy alf arrear and all his cost and damage but in this case the annuitant  have not enter for default of payment Lord chancellor there be no instance  where the court have ever allow interest upon the arrear of such a annuity if  indeed the annuitant have enter and be atkins er p in possession of the estate  charge with it the court will not have oblige he to have quit the possession  unless the grantor bad agree to allow he interest for the arrear of this  annuity down to the day see draper company v Davis ante Newman v auling post  vol Ferrer versus Ferrer vide Cas in the time of Lord Ch Talbot be different  from this because it be her jointure and interest upon the arrear of the  annuity be allow her by way of maintenance and as a compensation for the debt  she have contract in the meantime therefore this exception must be overrule