case Wortley versus Birkhead the same day a demurrer for want of equity the  attorney general counsel for the demurrer see Jennings v jordan App Cas S c  Ves after a decree in a cause a new original bill can be bring between the  same party and for the same matter after a decree in the cause a new original  bill be bring between the same party state the very same matter as in the  former and all the proceed in it and the hear before lord chancellor be in  December the material part of the decree as to the present suit be a reference  to the master to take a account of the plaintiff security atkins mention in  that cause and of what they have receive from rend and profit with common  direction and the master be to inquire into the priority of the encumbrance  and the estate in question be decree to be sell and the money arise from the  sale to be pay to encumbrancer accord to their respective priority the present  bill state the several proceed before the master and that the plaintiff have  produce a deed of the that of November and another in July and then set forth  that there be judgement in the that of William and mary and that and that of  April and also a prior mortgage discover since atkins er p the hear but the  master not allow the plaintiff to tack his mortgage to these security now  discover he therefore have bring his bill insist upon his right to do it and  pray that he may be permit to do it accord the demurrer go to such part of the  bill as seek satisfaction for money claim to be due under the deed of the that  of November or under the deed of in preference to the defendant demand under a  deed of a prior date in and submit to the court that the plaintiff be preclude  from this after the pronounce of the decree or if he be not preclude by the  decree that this bill be improper because the plaintiff may then come under  the decree in order to have it settle whether he have not a priority the  assignment which tack the plaintiff deed to the old mortgage and judgement  bear date only in and the priority between the plaintiff and defendant in the  former cause be the material point put in question there what be pray by this  bill be in effect to alter and do what be direct contrary to the former bill  but not to reverse it there be no instance where this court have make between  the same party two opposite decree in two different cause and therefore the  present bill be total improper nor can there be any case cite where this court  have allow of tack encumbrance after a decree have be pronounce and whether  this be within or without the former decree wherever way data it be improper  and the demurrer ought to be allow Mr York counsel of the same side atkins  this be a bill prim impression there be only two way of proceed either after a  decree be sign and enrol by a bill of review tailor v sharp p W gold v Tancred  atk Norris v Le neve atk or if not sign there must be a application to the  court to bring a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review and a  original bill can be bring to affect or alter a decree unless in a case where  the decree be obtain by fraud lewellin v Mackworth atk standish v Radley atk  more v more Ves mussel v Morgan bro Charles Rep the rule with regard to tack  be that a three encumbrancer take in the first to give he a priority to the  second mortgagee must have no notice of the second at the time of his money  lend but this have never be allow after a decree nor do I know it have be  suffer even after a bill bring Mr Hoskins of the same side the matter which be  discover be not a matter exist before the suit but subsequent and if this suit  be suffer to go on there will two clash decree with each other this bill admit  the priority of the defendant and therefore if we have obtain a right by the  decree which direct our mortgage to be pay in the first place this court can  never by a transaction between the present plaintiff and a stranger vary the  decree as to a right actual attach to the defendant such a proceed as this  will be big with absurdity because suppose the plaintiff shall have a decree  yet if another encumbrancer hereafter discover a mortgage precedent to the  plaintiff he may with a equal right bring a original bill to vary the first  decree and the second so that there will be no end of litigation if this be to  prevail Lord chancellor if a bill of this kind be suffer it will make great  confusion in the proceed of this court and introduce the utmost inconvenience  as to the three mortgagee take in a prior security in order to oust and  displace the second mortgagee I be clear of opinion that such a transaction  after a decree to account and before the master have make his report will not  avail to the prejudice of the second mortgagee by where a three mortgagee buy  in the first mortgage pendent light Robinson v Davidson bro Charles Rep and  therefore do allow the demurrer atkins er p