brown case richard may appellant Wentworth harnan respondent that January Mews  dig way xi a together with b and c as his surety execute a bind to d for  secure pound and interest the debt be pay by c with the proper money of a but  c neglect deliver up the bind to a to be cancel c afterward procure this bind  to be assign as a collateral security for a debt of his own hold that this  assignment be a gross fraud in c and a perpetual injunction be grant to  restrain all further proceed upon the bind sharing in sin in the case of fraud  be the most proper person to discover and prove it especial when what he so  prove turn to his own prejudice decree of the Lord chancellor of Ireland grant  injunction affirm one Thomas Whitley borrow of mrs Judith lake pound and for  secure the repayment thereof with interest he together with Roger Whitley  Matthew ken and the respondent as his surety execute a bind to mrs lake dart  that September in the penalty of pound condition for payment of the pound and  interest on the that of march follow in the year ken and one John mantus his  partner by the order and with the proper money of Thomas Whitley pay mrs lake  the principal and interest due on this bind which be thereupon deliver up to  mantus who keep it in his custody a considerable time and before Thomas  Whitley see either of they to demand a delivery of the bind he die ken and  mantus be indebt to Philip Howard Esq in a large sum of money upon bind in  which one Thomas shepherd have become bind with they and be insolvent in their  circumstance they prevail with mrs lake in November to assign to bind to  shepherd although she at the same time inform he that she have long ago be pay  all principal and interest due to her thereon nor do shepherd pay her any  money or other consideration for such assignment ken mantus and shepherd be  all bankrupt shepherd on the that of December follow with the privity of the  other two assign the say blood to Mr Howard as a far security for the debt  which they then owe he but ken soon afterward inform Mr Howard that there be  nothing due on this bind and tell he in what manner the same have be satisfy  by Thomas Whitley brown er p so that Mr Howard though he live several year  afterward never put the bind in suit against Roger Whitley the only solvent  obligor therein name in July mrs lake die and James lake her executor be by  some mean prevail upon to assign his interest in the brown bind to Mr Howard  but he at the same time assure he there be nothing due thereon Mr Howard  afterward die have make his will and thereof appoint Robert Thornhill Esq and  the appellant executor in trust for the payment of his debt and Charles earl  of Carlisle residuary legatee the respondent live in Ireland be a perfect  stranger to the several transaction which have pass relative to this bind but  Mr howard executor have send it there and put it in suit against he he make  some inquiry concern it and find that the bind have in fact be satisfy by the  original and real debtor in the manner before state the respondent in Hilary  term exhibit his bill in the court of chancery in that kingdom against the  executor of Mr Howard and also against the earl of Carlisle and other to be  relieve against the bind and to have the same deliver up and cancel on the d  of November the cause be hear before the Lord chancellor of Ireland when it  appear from the deposition of ken and mantus who be privy to all these  transaction that the say debt of pound and the interest thereof be pay by  Thomas Whitley in discharge of the bind that the assignment from mrs lake to  shepherd be make by fraud and contrivance without one farthing of money pay by  shepherd and that mrs lake and her executor at the time of their respective  assignment declare that nothing be due on the bind his lordship decree a  perpetual injunction against any proceed at law on the say bind and that the  same shall be deliver to and remain in the custody of the usher of the court  from this decree the defendant may alone appeal insist I Jekyll r turner that  ken deposition ought not to have be read because he be examine to prove the  payment of a debt for which he himself be bind and liable to be sue unless  acquit on his own testimony and that the deposition ought not also to have be  read or if read not credit he thereby confess himself a party to so great a  fraud as join in the assignment off a bind after it be satisfy that Mr Howard  appear to be a fair purchaser of the bind without notice of the pretend fraud  set up by the respondent bill and which he himself ought to have prevent by  take care to have have the bind cancel in case of payment and such neglect if  the money be pay ought not to turn to the prejudice of the appellant who be a  executor in trust to pay debt great part of which will never be pay unless he  receive the money due on this bind and that the court refuse to permit the  assignment from mrs lake to shepherd to be read although there be a  endorsement thereon of the payment to her of pound as the consideration of  such assignment brown on the other side it be contend S Harcourt S Cowper that  Mr ken who pay the debt to mrs lake with whitley money be the proper witness  to prove such payment and be under no legal disability inasmuch as he remain  debtor to Mr howard executor by his own and his partner be bind  notwithstanding his prove the bind to mrs lake satisfy and that this bind be  assign as a collateral security only for his own debt it be rather his  interest to prove that it be not pay by Thomas Whitley in order that in that  case the appellant may have receive a satisfaction on of the collateral  security in discharge of the principal debt that map sin in the case of fraud  be the most proper person to discover and prove it especial when as in the  present case what he prove be to his own prejudice for it be plain mantus  remain debtor to the appellant as executor to Mr Howard in all the money far  which he and his partner and shepherd be bind to Howard whereas if the  appellant have recover against the respondent the debt to Mr Howard will have  be pro tanto discharge that by the concur testimony of ken and mantus the  payment of the principal sum of pound and interest to mrs lake with the proper  money of Thomas Whitley be full and effectual prove and as to the refuse the  assignment from mrs lake to shepherd to be read there be no proof in the cause  of any payment whatsoever be make to her at the time of execute this brown er  p assignment but on the contrary it appear in evidence that no money be pay in  consideration thereof and therefore as it clear appear that the debt to mrs  lake be discharge for the payment whereof the respondent be bind and as the  bind which ought then to have be cancel have be afterward fraudulent assign it  be hope that the decree will be affirm with cost and accord after hear counsel  on this appeal it be order and adjudge that the appeal shall be dismiss and  the decree and injunction therein complain of affirm and that the appellant  shall pay to the respondent the sum of pound for his cost jour vol p