case black versus sir edward Hungerford Eq Abr c S c a seize in fee in right  of his wife join in a fine and declare the use to b by way of mortgage for  secure and subject thereto to the use of a for life remainder to the wife in  fee then a acknowledge a statute to c for pound then the wife die and a sell  his estate for life for pound to d the son and heir at law of the wife who  have no notice of the statute and the mortgage be assign to a three person who  pay off the pound and advance the pound then d acknowledge a statute to e who  have no notice of c s statute make his will and devise these land to a and die  as to the pound hold clear that shall be prefer to c s statute hold also that  e s statute shall be prefer to c s because the mortgagee be but in nature of  trustee for the son sir Edward Hungerford seize in right of his wife of the  manor of d procure her to join with he in a fine by way of mortgage in fee for  secure pound and the equity of redemption thereof upon payment of the money be  limit to sir Edward for life without impeachment of waste remainder to the  wife and her heir and assign sir Edward afterward acknowledge a statute of  pound to George Arnold to who SirJeremy Sambrook be administrator then the  wife die and Anthony Hungerford be her son and heir sir Edward Hungerford  contract with Anthony his son who have no notice of the statute to sell he his  estate for life in the manor for pound and accord Anthony procure pound more  to be u ken up upon the mortgage and the mortgage to be transfer to the new  mortgagee who pay off the old one and furnish the pound to sir Edward  Hungerford precedent in chancery and the equity of redemption be limit to  Anthony and he covenant to pay the money and the mortgagee covenant on payment  of the money to assign to he or as he shall direct then Anthony acknowledge a  statute to one Mellish who have no notice of the pound statute and after make  his will and devise legacy to the plaintiff and charge they on the say manor  and devise the manor itself to sir Edward Hungerford and his heir and the  great question be whether Sambrook who have the interest of the statute  acknowledge by sir Edward while he be tenant for life or Mellish who be  Conuzee of Anthony after his purchase of sir Edward estate for life shall be  prefer in payment the master of the roll decree that sir Jeremy sambrook  statute must come in after the creditor and legatee of sir Anthony Hungerford  and that Mellish must come in immediate after anthones legacy by virtue of  Mellishs statute Mellish have join in the declaration of trust and this decree  be affirm by my Lord keeper with the assistance of Mr justice Blencow and Lord  chief justice Trevor the reason urge for it be that though neither have the  legal estate and that between two equity who prior be tempore drinking be jure  yet that must be understand of bare equity but in this case Anthony Hungerford  have more than a bare equity that the case of smith and Christ hospital do not  come up to this case for there be a term stand out to which neither party have  a right but by anthones purchase the whole interest be unite in he and they  who have the legal interest covenant to assign to he and be but his trustee  after payment of the mortgage money and it differ little from the common case  where a three mortgagee buy in the first mortgage in trust for himself and  Anthony may make use of his trustee name at law either to defend or recover  and may have a action at law against they to assign precedent in chancery that  though sir Edward equity for life will have entitle he on payment of a three  part to redeem and the pound statute be a charge upon that equity yet that be  liable to be defeat by a subsequent encumbrancer without notice but such  purchaser must not be a purchaser of a bare equity only for then the first  will prevail but Anthony be a purchaser of sir Edward equity and the legal  estate together and will have the protection of the legal estate his deed of  purchase takesnotice of the case and that the mortgage be assign at his  instance and by his procurement and so he purchase the benefit of the legal  estate together with the equity precedent in chancery er p if a three  mortgagee take only a agreement of the first mortgagee to convey to he the  second can in such case compel he to assign to he because such agreement be no  more than what they may have do without any agreement and in this ease Anthony  be not entitle upon the old equity of sir Edward but on the new equity raise  on the new mortgage and he be a absolute purchaser of the estate subject to  the mortgage and must have the protection of it and to decree a conveyance to  sir Jeremy Sambrook will be to decree a breach of a fair and lawful covenant  and agreement