case DOWNAM all versus matthews all Eq Abr pl S c wms wms atk S p S c cite vin  Abr pl Blackst Rep a a clothier and b a dyer have mutual deal in the way of  their trade which be carry on several year without payment of money on either  side b die intestate and indebt to other by specialty who as principal  creditor take out administration to he and sue a at law equity will enjoin the  action and order a account and that a shall be allow by way of discount what  be due to he from b the plaintiff be clothier and have mutual deal with one  biss to who they sell and deliver several clothes and biss set off the money  owe to they in die of clothes these deal have be carry on for several year  without payment of money on either side but the debt on one side be pay off  against the debt on the other side biss be likewise indebt to the defendant  for clothes and other good which he have buy of they and on state account  between biss and the defendant he appear to be indebt to they in the sum of  pound and upward for which he make they a mortgage and become after indebt to  they in the sum of pound and upward he do for secure of that money enter into  a bind and confess a judgement to they biss die intestate and indebt likewise  to several other person by bind and other specialty the defendant take out  administration as principal creditor and find several sum as due and owe from  the plaintiff demand payment thereof the plaintiff on the other hand have  several precedent in chancery sum of money due and owe they from the intestate  and offer to account with the defendant and pay what shall be due on the  balance thereof but insist to retain what be owe they towards payment of what  be owe from they to the intestate as they have always do in his lifetime upon  this the defendant be both administrator and creditor by specialty as  aforesaid think themselves entitle to a preference in payment before the  plaintiff who be at most but creditor by simple contract precedent in chancery  er p and thereupon the defendant refuse to discount what be due to the  plaintiff from the intestate out of what be due from the plaintiff to the  intestate but instead thereof bring action at law against the plaintiff for  the money owe by they to the intestate and to be relieve against these action  and that they may be allow to stop their own debt out of what be owe by they  to the intestate the plaintiff bring this bill and the only question be  whether the defendant shall be oblige to enter into the account it be argue by  the defendant that they ought not that they be not only administrator but also  creditor and creditor too by specialty and therefore have a right to recover  and retain towards payment of their own debt preferable to the plaintiff who  be only creditor by simple contract that this be a legal advantage they be  entitle unto and that a court of equity ought not to take it from they however  hard this may seem as against the plaintiff yet the bare hardship of it can be  no ground for relief in a court of equity that before the late statute g cap  and g cap respect mutual credit in case of bankruptcy it be the same in the  case of bankrupt that the debtor to the bankrupt shall be oblige to pay  whatsoever they be indebt to he without the liberty of retain what he be  indebt to they and though this be now alter yet the present case remain as at  law and the defendant ought not to be deprive of it by a court of equity and  that to do this will be to invert and alter the precedent in chancery course  of administration which allow that debt of a superior nature shall be pay  preferable to debt of a inferior nature as the plaintiff be but Lord  chancellor say that though general stoppage be no payment and that there be  some case where this can not be do as a man can not stop his rend for money  owe to he or a bind towards satisfaction of a simple contract debt yet in case  of this nature where it appear that the mutual deal between the intestate and  the plaintiff be carry on for several year in this manner without payment of  any money on either side it be a strong presumptive argument of a agreement to  this purpose and that without such liberty of retain against each other they  will not have continue on their deal but if it have be insist upon by either  party that the other shall not be allow to set off his debt out of what be owe  by he to the other as they can that this will have soon break off all deal  between they that this be the constant use among merchant and trader and the  only reason which induce they to take such good as they want of one rather  than another be that such other person in his way shall talon of they the good  he want and to set off one against the other that the statute of bankrupt  which direct account to be take in such manner do it because it be reasonable  to have be so before or else you must suppose that the parliament make a  unreasonable law that if there be but the least handle for direct such a  account it ought to be do as if even in case of a bind the interest have not  be pay but cast up and allow in good that this will entitle they to retain the  whole against each as the account shall come out that the representative of  each party will be in no better condition than the party themselves will have  be in case they have be live and no pretence can have be to let the one go on  for the recovery of his debt without allow precedent in chancery the other to  retain his own debt thereout and therefore send it to a master to take the  account accord and order the plaintiff cost out of the asset de boundary  paschae in curian porter