c duchess OF Cleveland v executor OF geo Dashwood S c Eq can ab Lord keeper  master of the roll scrivener ante case post case the duchess have pound per  and grant to her and her heir by king Charles out of the excise or custom and  have occasion to borrow a sum of money Mr grey who be gentleman of her horse  procure the same of one Roger a scrivener who be employ to let out money for  the say executor and give he pound for procuration the security give for it be  out of this pound per and a proportion whereof be set apart to be yearly apply  towards this debt till the whole principal and interest be discharge Mr Roger  have receive pound for the use of the executor and give his receipt accord and  have account to freeman the executor for above pound but about pound remain in  his hand unaccounted for and he die insolvent and the only question be whether  this loss shall fall upon the duchess or the executor and it appear that Mr  Roger be agent for the executor not only in this but in other affair and that  he transact this matter on their behalf save the write execute and pay the  money lend and the money be appoint to be pay at his house and the write be  leave with he and for all that appear continue at his house Henn v Conisby I  Charles can Gerard v baker cite ibidem and see Parnther v Gaitskill east they  be both of opinion that the loss ought to fall upon the executor freeman er p  and not upon the duchess who for all that appear be a utter stranger to Roger  before the borrow of this money and the master of the roll take the  distinction which he say have always be allow that if a bind Whitelock v  Waltham salk be leave with a scrivener that be sufficient for he to receive  the principal and interest and the delivery up of the bind be a sufficient  discharge to he that pay it but if a mortgage be leave with a scrivener this  be a sufficient authority to he to receive the interest but not the principal  Whitelock v Waltham where above martin v Kingsley Prec in Charles and the  delivery up of the mortgage by he be no sufficient discharge to the mortgagor  because the estate ought to be reassigned which can be do but by the party  himself but the Lord keeper say he see no reason for this difference but that  in equity it will be all one the money be real pay to the person who have the  deed in his custody but the master of the roll seem to be of a contrary  opinion but however here the money be to be pay by instalment principal and  interest together and it be plain he have account for part to the executor the  principal can avow the act of his agent as to part and disavow it for the rest  Wilson v poulter Str billon v hide atk the same rule hold as to a infant  election to abide by any particular transaction of his guardian ante c p Reg  lib a fol the court refer it to one of the master to compute the principal and  interest due to the defendant upon the mortgage of the say annuity and to tax  the defendant their cost and the master in take the say account be to make to  the plaintiff the duchess a allowance for all such sum of money as be pay to  the say Roger the scrivener for the defendant the court be satisfy that the  say Roger be agent for the say defendant but the defendant be to stand in  Roger place so far as to have the benefit and advantage of what money the say  Roger lend to the duchess out of his own money in their name that be not repay  to he and upon payment of what shall appear to be due to they the mortgagee be  to reconvey the annuity and all their right and title therein to the plaintiff  the defendant be allow their cost and no countermand have ever be give and  therefore think it reasonable that what be pay to Roger shall be allow to the  duchess on account her bill be to redeem