c cock v shearman shearman v Cox et all subsequent mortgagee buy in a  precedent mortgage ante case which see five successive mortgagee of the same  land the five mortgagee buy in the three first mortgage and then exhibit his  bill against the mortgagor to exclude he of his equity of redemption and have  the land decree to he absolute in this case it be hold per finch chancellor  that the four mortgagee have a equity of redemption but yet he shall not be  let in to redeem unless he satisfy the five mortgage which be subsequent to  his as well as the other three that be before it for when a purchaser or  mortgagee lie out his money good fide not have any notice of the encumbrance  he may fortify his estate and title as well as he can and when he have get a  title in law in he as here he have by the precedent mortgage this court will  never take it away from he without reimburse he all his money that freeman he  be out upon it and if the purchaser have notice of the encumbrance at the time  when he buy in the precedent mortgage it be not material so that he have it  not at the time of the purchase tack be allow even light pendent up to the  time of a decree to settle priorities till which time the struggle for the  picture in shipwreck may be continue Ei ten part Knott Ves what shall be deem  notice be a question to which Mr Sugden have devote the whole of the that  chapter of his treatise on the law of vendor and purchaser to which the reader  be refer in order to avoid swell these note by multiply reference to a book  which be in every professional man hand it be hold that if there be two  mortgage and a man have notice of they will come and purchase and buy in the  first mortgage and so endeavour to defeat the second mortgagee in this case  the second mortgagee shall be let in upon payment of the first mortgage money  without any regard to the purchase money for else by this mean any man that be  a second mortgagee may be cheat and have no remedy it be hold that the four  mortgagee be not conclude b this decree be never make a party to it and  although here be a great mischief on one hand that a mortgagee after a decree  against the mortgagor to foreclose he of his equity of redemption shall never  know when to be at rest for if there be any other encumbrance he be still  liable to a account yet the inconvenience be far great on the other side for  if a mortgagee that be a stranger to this decree shall be conclude he will be  absolute without remedy and lose his whole money when perhaps a decree may be  huddle up purposely to cheat he and in the mean time he be pay his interest  may be lull asleep and think nothing of it whereas on the other hand there be  no prejudice but be liable to the trouble of a account and if so be that be  state good fide between the mortgagor and mortgagee in the suit wherein the  decree be obtain that shall be no more ravel into but for so long shall stand  untouched another point in this case be here be a judgement that be give by  the mortgagor precedent to the four mortgage and be for security of four  hundred pound but be freeman er p satisfy before the four mortgage be make and  the bind deliver up upon which it be obtain but after the four mortgage make  the conusor of the judgement borrow four hundred pound more and three year  after the lend of the money it be declare that this judgement shall stand for  security of that money and afterward this judgement be extend and the five  mortgagee buy in the extent of this judgement freeman resolve that this  judgement shall be set aside have the judgement never be satisfy but duly keep  on foot the mortgagee may have tack it baker v Harris Ves the distinction as  lie down in ex part Knott where above be that a mortgagee may tack a  subsequent judgement but a mere judgement creditor can tack a mortgage not  have contract original for a estate in the land and therefore can only be  entitle to a elegit by Reg lib b fol it appear there be several other  defendant in this cause but Cox and trinder only be bring to the hear the  matter in dispute be as follow the plaintiff testator in lend pound to one  robin for repayment of which the say robin and the defendant trinder be joint  bind robin in borrow a far sum to make up the debt pound upon which the say  bind be deliver up to be cancel and to secure payment of the pound robin give  a mortgage of the land in question to the plaintiff testator with a proviso of  redemption and make oath that the say premise be free from encumbrance and  also give a statute for further security of the say debt in mich t the  plaintiff testator lend robin pound more for which in the same term he give a  judgement and also covenant that in case the say pound shall not be pay at the  time agree on he will within one month after default sell so much of the land  as shall be sufficient to satisfy the whole debt of pound and interest the  money be not pay and the mortgage be forfeit the plaintiff in his testator  have die two year previous thereto file his bill in this court to obtain  payment when robin by his answer discover several precedent mortgage and  encumbrance and among other that dr Ingelo have a mortgage upon the say  premise and thereupon the plaintiff by the direction of robin pay pound to dr  Ingelo who term be then assign in trust for the plaintiff the defendant insist  that the say robin be further indebt to the defendant trinder good fide in the  sum of pound and on the d of October give a bind for payment of the say pound  upon which judgement be obtain in mich t then follow that robin in October  mortgage the say premise for pound to one smith and in November demise part of  the say premise by lease to one partridge for forty year for secure a debt of  pound that the mortgage to partridge be forfeit he in march assign the same to  one Browning who afterward find out the say prior mortgage to smith whereof he  have no notice before to be unsatisfy he procure the same to be assign to he  and in exhibit his bill in this court against robin to have his money or that  the equity of redemption may be foreclose and the money not be pay the premise  be decree to the say Browning which decree be sign and enrol and the premise  be absolute vest in Browning from who the defendant Cox purchase the same that  the defendant trinder the cognizee of the say judgement for for good  consideration do in assign the say judgement to one Hawkins upon which the  premise in question be extend and the say Hawkins obtain a decree in this  court for the premise in his hold and thereupon Hawkins for a full and  valuable consideration assign to the defendant Cox the say judgement extent  and decree and the say Browning assign to the say Cox the say two mortgage and  say decree of foreclosure the plaintiff urge that the question as to the  mortgage and the judgement be quite distinct that the judgement be only a  countersecurity to indemnify trinder against the bind in which he have join as  aforesaid to the plaintiff testator which bind be satisfy and cancel trinder  ought to have acknowledge satisfaction upon the say judgement and that  although the defendant may be entitle to be pay what be due on the say  mortgage to Browning which the plaintiff offer to pay yet there be no reason  why the say judgement shall take place of the plaintiff claim the defendant  Cox have have notice of the plaintiff interest before he take in the say  judgement and the plaintiff contend that notwithstanding the say decree of  foreclosure he ought to be let in to redeem the premise and the court declare  itself satisfy that the say several decree be gain by contrivance of the  defendant Cox and that the say decree ought not to foreclose the plaintiff  equity of redemption of Brownings mortgage and this without pay the money due  on Hawkins judgement which as far as the plaintiff be concern ought to be look  upon in equity as satisfy the court do therefore decree the say judgement and  the extent thereon to be set aside as to the plaintiff S security and a  perpetual injunction to be award to stay all proceed at law on the say  judgement as to any land liable to any of the plaintiff security now in  question and that the plaintiff shall be admit to redemption of Brownings say  mortgage notwithstanding the say decree of foreclosure with this nevertheless  that the account then take shall be in nature of a state account and the sum  therein compute as due for principal and interest shall from that time be take  as a principal sum and that the defendant Cox shall discount all profit of the  say premise receive by he and upon payment of what be due on the say mortgage  shall convey the say mortgage premise to the plaintiff discharge of all  encumbrance and if the money be pay then no cost to be allow to the defendant  Cox but if the money be not pay at the time to be appoint by the master to who  it be refer to take the account then the plaintiff bill to stand dismiss with  cost to be pay by the plaintiff as to the four mortgagee and shall not stand  in his way for when the judgement be once satisfy and keep foot it be in trust  for the conusor and when money be advance afterward and no mention of this  judgement at the time of the lend this declaration afterward shall not keep it  on foot to defeat a purchaser but if so be the creditor have lend this money  at first upon the prospect and security of this judgement perhaps it may have  be otherwise freeman er p freeman de term S hill in curian porter