case MORRET versus pask October nun but a good fide purchaser of a puny  encumbrance without notice of intermediate one can tack it to a prior a prior  mortgagee who have a assignment of a three mortgage as a trustee only can tack  the two mortgage together to the prejudice of intervene encumbrancer a  mortgage may be tack to a judgement brace v Marlborough p W see Matthew v  Cartwright post vol a creditor by judgement in for pound in the year come to a  account with the conusor and settle the remainder due upon the judgement at  pound and then take a mortgage in fee for that sum as a collateral security to  the judgement one sander a attorney in take a assignment of this mortgage in  which there be a recital that pound the consideration of the assignment be  then the full worth of the estate and the assignment likewise be make at a  time when there be a suit depend between particular creditor upon several  other estate of the mortgagor to late Mr John Bennet in conjunction with  judgement creditor at large and the representative of Bennet sander be in  possession too of another mortgage in upon the same estate as be subject to  the judgement in and the mortgage in Lord chancellor sander shall not be allow  to tack the two mortgage together videlicet that in and the other in so as to  defeat intermediate encumbrancer between the year and and vet the mortgage in  shall have relation back to the judgement in and by consolidate they together  shall entitle sander to receive the sum due upon that judgement prior to  creditor after the year but as to money report du e since the mortgage in  sander be to be pay only in priority to creditor subsequent to Reg lib b fol  atkins the rule of the court as to prior encumbrancer take in a subsequent one  so as to tack it to the prior be where he be a good fide purchaser of the puny  encumbrance without notice of intermediate one but here the puny encumbrance  be buy in while there be such a be pennines as will make sander a purchaser  with notice Cason v round Prec Charles Goddard v complin Charles can anon  Charles can brace v Marlborough p W the word in the recital of the assignment  of the mortgage in that pound the consideration money be the full worth of the  estate at that time natural imply that there be other intermediate encumbrance  and therefore to give sander the advantage of tack both mortgage will be  contrary to his own intention atkins er p for at the time he take the  assignment of this puny encumbrance he must know the estate be worth no more  from the very word of the recital if a prior mortgagee take a assignment of a  three mortgage as a trustee only for another person he shall not be allow to  tack the two mortgage together to the prejudice of intervene encumbrancer if  this be permit a mere stranger purchase the three mortgage by declare he buy  it in trust only for the first mortgagee may tack both together and defeat all  the other encumbrancer the reason why a mortgage may be tack to a judgement be  this because the judgement creditor by virtue of a elegit may bring a  ejectment and hold upon the extend value and as he have the legal interest in  the estate the court will not take it from he but this rule hold only where  the same person have both judgement and mortgage in the same right and not  where he have the judgement in his own right and the mortgage in another right  as a trustee only where there be a prior mortgagee who have a puisne  encumbrance a second mortgagee shall not redeem the prior without redeem the  puisne at the same time and the reason be because the legal estate be in the  first mortgagee and this court will not take away that benefit from he provide  he have no notice of the second at the time he buy in the puisne one where a  prior encumbrancer by mortgage judgement or statute staple have a bind  likewise from the mortgagor the mortgagor in his lifetime may redeem the  mortgage c without pay off the bind debt challis v Casborn Prec Charles anon  Ves Coleman v winch Cox p W n archer v snatt stram contra Baxter v man vern  otherwise as to the heir at law because the moment he redeem the estate it  shall be asset in his hand and for this reason the court compel he to  discharge the bind as well as the mortgage Shuttleworth v Laywick vern Coleman  v winch p W powis v Corbet post vol Troughton v Troughton Ves atkins where  there be several encumbrance upon a estate as be the present case and the  prior encumbrancer have a bind likewise he can insist upon be pay both which  will be a prejudice to the puisne encumbrancer but his bind shall be postpone  to all other encumbrance whether by mortgage judgement or statute staple for  he have not the same equity against a puisne encumbrancer as against a heir at  law who be liable in respect of asset Lowthian v Hassell bro Charles Rep a  agent trustee heir at law or executor purchase a puisne encumbrance as against  another encumbrancer shall be pay no more than what he give for this  encumbrance otherwise as to a prior creditor who good fide buy in a puisne  encumbrance though he do not give the full value for it the rule be lie down  general indeed by Lord chancellor jefferys in the case of William v  Springfield vern S c see also baker v Kellet Charles Rep Phillips v Vaughan  vern darcy v hall vern anon salk as well with regard to creditor and creditor  as to trustee heir at law or executor per cur where there be subsequent  encumbrance or creditor in the case there a man that buy in a prior  encumbrance shall be allow only what he real pay though there be in truth a  great sum due William v Springfield vern but I can say that I remember any  decree in this court subsequent to this case where it have be lie down as a  general rule but have be much more narrow since and hold only as I observe  before with regard to agent trustee heir at law or executor