case MOCATTA et all versus Murgatroyd observe upon and discuss Stevens v  MidHants railway   l r Ch Adam v angel Ch d Gokuldoss Gopaldoss v Rambux  Seochand l r ind App Lord chancellor Cowper Eq can ab pl where a first  mortgagee be a witness to the second mortgage though no actual proof of his  know the content thereof yet since thepresumption be that he may have know the  same this shall postpone he mortgagee of a ship by deed intrust the mortgagor  with the original bill of sale and the mortgagor endorses thereon subsequent  mortgage or till of sale of several part of the ship and mortgagee acquiesce  this be evidence of a assent in such mortgagee and shall therefore postpone he  the first mortgagee take a release of the ultimate equity of redemption this  do not oblige the say first mortgagee to pay off the intermediate mortgage if  he will waive the release mortgagee shall not onerate his pledge with cost  which he occasion by a unjust defence a owner of a ship mortgage his ship to a  with who he leaves the original bill of sale and this mortgage to a be make by  a mortgage only without any endorsement or notice of the mortgage on the bill  of sale as be usual afterward the mortgagor desire a the mortgagee to let he  have the original bill of sale which be comply with and thereupon the  mortgagor make several subsequent mortgage of several part of the ship which  be endorse upon the original bill of sale and sometime afterward the mortgagor  deliver up the bill of sale to a the mortgagee who make no objection or  complaint of these endorsement it appear likewise in the case that the owner  of the ship have make a prior mortgage to this of a s by a deed bear date the  day before but that the prior mortgagee be a witness to peer William er p the  mortgage deed make to a also a the mortgagee sometime afterward take release  from the mortgagor of his equity of redemption peer William in which case  these point be decree by the Lord chancellor saint that the first mortgagee of  the ship be a witness to the second mortgage though it do not appear that he  actual know the content of the second mortgage yet since it do not appear but  that he may know they it will be presume that every witness that can write or  read be acquaint with the substance of the deed or instrument which he have  attest it undertake to support by his evidence and that therefore in the  principal case the first mortgagee be a witness to the second mortgage and not  acquaint the second mortgagee with his former mortgage this shall give a  preference to the second mortgage dly that when a the mortgagee be so careless  as to intrust the mortgagor with the original bill of sale by which mean  endorsement of the subsequent mortgage be make thereon and accept again of the  bill of sale from the mortgagor without make any complaint or take any  exception thereto this together with the long acquiescence afterward amount to  a imply consent in a to the subsequent mortgage of the several part of the  ship that have be endorse and shall give a preference to such mortgage peer  William dly that though a the mortgagee when there be subsequent mortgage take  afterward a release of the ultimate equity of redemption yet this do not  oblige the say a who have take a release of such equity to pay the  intermediate mortgage provide he will still waive the release make to he of  the equity thly in this case a the mortgagee be order to pay cost to the  plaintiff who be endorsees of the subsequent mortgage or bill of sale but a be  not to have his cost over against the first mortgagor in regard Lord  chancellor say it be not reasonable that a shall onerate his pledge with cost  occasion by his unjust defence see Morony v odea ba de queen yet whether the  bare attest a subsequent encumbrance without other circumstance of presumptive  notice will postpone a prior encumbrancer since at that rate a prior mortgagee  or encumbrancer may without any fraud or ill intention on his side be liable  to be cheat of his security and so I find it say by Lord king in our author  report of a anonymous case in mich nun of the case seem to come up to this  point vide Hobbs v Norton vern Peter v Russell Eq can ab pl Ibbotson v Rhodes  vern head v Egerton post Vol III Berrisford v Milward atk anon cite ves Becket  v cordley bro c c from which it appear that in order to postpone a prior  mortgagee it be necessary to prove against he fraud or actual notice of the  subsequent mortgage and therefore in Becket v cordley Lord Thurlow think the  present case of Mocatta v Murgatroyd go too far in impute notice to the first  mortgagee from the mere circumstance of his be a witness to the second  mortgage since it be in common practice for person to attest the execution of  deed without be make acquaint with their content N B the editor have not be  able to find this decree in the register book see plumb v Fluitt Anst Fonb Eq  note n Evans v Bicknell Ves Barnett v Weston Ves Harper v faulder mad ex part  neux g James