case MERTINS against Jolliffe executor and other where a purchaser can make  out his title but through a deed which lead to a fact he will be affect with  notice of that fact lib Reg b foe b that and that June and that July John  Barnardiston be entitle under a settlement in to a remainder in tail expectant  on the death of sir ambler Samuel Barnardiston and subject to a term of  ninetynine year for raise pound by indenture of that and that August grant a  rentcharge of pound ayear to plaintiff and his heir on the that of the same  month he grant a rentcharge of pound ayear to Gibbons and covenant that the  estate be free from encumbrance except the rentcharge to plaintiff John  Barnardiston afterward come into possession of the estate and have suffer a  recovery to himself in fee by indenture of lease and release that and that  march in consideration of Gibbons have extinguish the rentcharge of that  August grant he a new rentcharge of pound which be afterward assign to Northey  in and have be since assign to Jolliffe there be a second rentcharge grant to  plaintiff and two other to Gibbons by John Barnardiston subsequent to that in  which be assign to Northey and sir William Jolliffe who get a assignment of  the term of ninetynine year by way of mortgage plaintiff become owner of the  inheritance and the estate prove deficient to pay all the charge upon it bring  this bill to redeem the estate on payment of what ambler er p be due for  principal and interest on the term of ninetynine year the defendant set up the  term as a protection to their several rentcharge Q whether they be affect by  notice of plaintiff rentcharge and therefore to be postpone thereto as to all  or any of their rentcharge after argument at bar Lord Hardwicke chancellor it  be admit the plaintiff have a right to redeem Q on what term that depend on  the priority of the encumbrance exclusive of the term of ninetynine year the  defendant insist that the legal estate be vest in Jolliffe as a trustee and  that it will protect their other encumbrance Q whether sir William Jolliffe  have notice of plaintiff encumbrance ambler and if he have whether plaintiff  will have a better right to call for the legal estate saint Q whether Gibbons  at the time of take the conveyance and Northey and sir William Jolliffe at the  time of assign the rentcharge of march have notice of the rentcharge grant to  plaintiff I be of opinion the plaintiff have a right to be prefer as to the  rentcharge of that August to the first rentcharge grant to Gibbons Q how  Gibbons be affect with notice how Northey how sir William Jolliffe be for I  admit it be not sufficient to show that Gibbons only be affect for if one  affect with notice convey to another without notice the assignee in case he  have the legal estate shall protect himself against prior encumbrance so vice  line if a encumbrancer without notice assign to one who have notice yet the  assignee may protect himself and the reason be to prevent a stagnation of  property the fact be in the deed of that August be a covenant against  encumbrance except the rentcharge to plaintiff in the new rentcharge be grant  to Gibbons on no other consideration but the extinguishment of the former it  be clear Gibbons have notice and be once affect be always so as to Northey he  have the deed of in his custody by his answer he say he have it not till long  after the money be advance by he I do not care to let his answer be read as to  that fact but take it to be so yet his deed of conveyance recite all the  former by which he must know that the consideration of the deed of be the  extinguishment of the rentcharge grant by the deed of sir William Jolliffe be  affect with notice in the same manner several objection have be make to the  notice saint that the deed of be cancel that be be virtual so by the  extinguishment of the rentcharge and though a man be bind to take notice of  every thing necessary to make out his title yet he need not look into what be  not necessary to it draper company v yardly vern Coppen v Fernyhough bro c c  bury v bury Sugd vend App No Wyatt v Barwell Ves ambler I agree it be not  necessary to make out the title to the rentcharge but it be necessary to make  out the consideration of the new rentcharge otherwise it will have be  voluntary sir John Barnardiston be a encumber man and it be material to see  the consideration there be a great many case on notice and a distinction have  be take between actual and imply notice and though it be difficult to  reconcile all the determination get some general rule must be observe Ferrars  v cherry vern go a great way that be imply notice more v Bennet Charles Cas be  also a imply notice the word of the book be and so it be in all case where the  purchaser can make out a title but by a deed which lead he to another fact the  purchaser shall not be a purchaser without notice of that fact but shall be  presume cognizant of it for it be Crassus heedlessness that be seek not after  it tailor v Hibbert Ves I hall v smith Ves Daniels v Davison Ves Ves Walter v  man I W Hamilton v royse Sch Lef Biscoe v earl Banbury I Chan Cas go much  further than the present case as to all the other encumbrance except the  rentcharge of I be of opinion the defendant be entitle to be prefer to the  plaintiff for as to they the defendant be not affect with notice of the  rentcharge of therefore decree c in the above case the only evidence of the  deed of be in the possession of ambler er p the defendant be the discovery in  northey answer and on the deed be produce the counsel for the defendant offer  to read northey answer to show that they be not deliver to they till late and  long after he have purchase the rentcharge but Lord chancellor refuse it  though it be argue and insist to be very hard because the only account of the  delivery of the deed be in the answer and by its not be permit to be read the  deed must be take to be in northey custody at the time of the purchase ten  year before it actual be note Mr Sugden remark vend that it seem that the  defendant have sufficient notice beside the mere custody of the deed his  conveyance recite all the former deed and therefore the read the answer to  prove when the deed in question come into his custody be perfect unnecessary  general if a person admit deed in his custody it be incumbent on he to show  when it come in see in earl pomfret v Lord Windsor Ves brandling v Ord atk S c  west Andrew v Wringley bro g c Kenedy v Daly Sch Lef see Ingram v Pelham ante  Harrison v forth pre Ch Lowther v Carlton atk S c Eq can Abr sweet v Southcote  bro c c in Macqueen v Farquar Ves Mitf Tr beam Tr on p and case there Bennet v  walker west