b fish against hopkins Feb if a subsequent judgement creditor of a mortgagor  come to redeem he must redeem the whole and not a moiety only of the premise  see palk v Clinton Ves mortgagee have notice of a judgement can tack against  the judgement creditor sum advance after such notice on security of the  mortgage premise see Montague v Radcliffe Amb in note lib Reg b foe before  Lord king chancellor fish have a mortgage from Grantham which bear date in  June afterward the interest run in arrear for many year and in August be make  principal in July Hopkins have a judgement for pound against Grantham which be  enter up fish have notice of this judgement advance other sum of money to  Grantham who subject the mortgage premise to the payment Hopkins bring his  bill to redeem fish upon payment of what be due only before notice of the  judgement but fish insist that Hopkins can not redeem but upon payment of  principal and interest due before the judgement and that the premise afterward  as to one moiety be liable to pay he fish his whole money advance after notice  and that the moiety only can be redeem by Hopkins to let in his judgement  ambler the Lord chancellor declare that a creditor by judgement must redeem  the whole or none for that the mortgagee be not subject to redemption by  portion if a mortgage to b two acre and after to c one of the say two acre c  can redeem a moiety of the mortgage nor be b oblige to lessen his security and  it will create great difficulty to suffer creditor to redeem by portion that  although a judgement can charge a moiety of the land only yet such creditor  may redeem a prior mortgage and if after notice of the judgement a prior  mortgagee will advance further sum of money it be his fault and he must suffer  for it and it be decree that Hopkins shall redeem upon payment only of what be  due to fish before notice of the judgement and it be order that the interest  which be make principal shall be pay by Hopkins before he shall redeem but  that the grow interest thereof shall be postpone such principal money only be  due before the judgement see Digby v crag Amb and Montague v Radcliffe in note  there and fish be to be foreclose in case he do not afterward redeem Hopkins  this case and that of green and Symonds post letter Q be take from the copy of  amblers report in the British museum and what former belong to the late Mr  Hargrave from that copy it appear that the original impression of the first  sheet of the work commence with the above two case see Tilley v Davis vin Abr  Eq can Abr ex part carter ante Stileman v Atledown Amb and note there Ireson v  dean Cox roe v soley W Bl Fribourg v Lord pomfret Amb Jones v smith Ves jun  Mergrave v Le nook vern