case knoll versus expense in court Lord chancellor twenty year quiet  possession be a bar to the equity of the mortgagor whether the mortgagee be  put in possession by the mortgagor himself or by the sheriff Ant Cas Mr  solicitor general for the defendant Mr knoll the grandfather of the plaintiff  mortgage the land in question to Lawson for pound and expense the defendant  enter into bind with he to secure the repayment of the money which expense  afterward pay and in the mortgage be assign to he by knoll and Dawson in  expense advance pound more which be secure by the say land by a endorsement on  the mortgage and in knoll deliver possession to expense and in die leave a son  the father of the plaintiff of full age who live till and in all that time  make no claim or application to the defendant the plaintiff his son be  nineteen at the time of his death and in file this bill twentytwo year after  his title accrue and about thirtytwo year after expense come first into  possession and the only question be whether he may redeem after this distance  of time it must be allow that a equity of redemption may be bar by length of  time as well as by a foreclosure or a release and in conformity to the statute  of limitation court of equity have decree that twenty year shall amount to a  foreclosure which be the same length of time that by the statute bar the party  of his right of entry here above thirty year be lapse since the defendant come  into possession and though the plaintiff be a infant in when his father die  his grandfather and father be of full age and under no disability and where  once the time begin no disability after can prevent its run on and where the  mortgagee continue so long in quiet possession the law be the same whether he  enter voluntary or on a ejectment nay in the first case the evidence be strong  against the mortgagor that the security be defective in the case of Ord versus  Heming vern a demurrer to a redemption because the mortgage be sixty year old  be overrule because it be express charge in the bill that mosely report the  mortgagor agree the mortgagee shall enter and hold till he be satisfy and in  that case length of time be no bar and that be on a demurrer the court may be  Willing to look further into it but here it be not charge that possession be  deliver to the mortgagee that the mortgage may be pay by the perception of the  profit and the difficulty of account be the same whether the mortgagee be put  into possession by the mortgagor or by the sheriff the value of the estate and  the easiness of take the account be I allow examine at mosely report er p  tions of weight in a doubtful case the plaintiff say the estate be worth pound  to be sell and pound a year it be value only at pound when we come into  possession and though it may be of great value now by our improvement that  will not give the plaintiff a better equity to redeem we have make several  improvement we build a barn about twentyeight year ago and the workman bill be  lose or mislay so that we be under a disability of prove the sum and the time  they be lie out to have interest allow for they Lord chancellor I shall  endeavour to come as near to the law and a certain rule as I can by law the  plaintiff be bar of his entry or account of profit why shall equity then act  contrary to law and since it be necessary to fix a time no better can be pitch  on than that settle by the law and therefore the bill must be dismiss  mortgagee be subject to too many hardship in this court without oblige they to  account after such a length of time former they account only as bailiff for  what they actual receive now they be oblige to account not only for what they  actual receive but for what they may have receive without their wilful default  and they be allow nothing for their care and pain why shall the defendant give  the plaintiff thirtytwo year labour for nothing Chan Cas if a cause be adjourn  over for want of party and the defendant be serve with the order yet he must  be serve with a subpoena to hear judgement the word all just allowance in a  decree do not empower the master to allow for improvement but the decree must  particular mention they which it never do unless the party lie before the  court some proof there have be any mosely report Wednesday November the that  plead and demurrer