case law v law Lord chancellor Talbot can tempt Talb Eq can ab pl a by his  interest with the commissioner of excise get a office in that branch of the  revenue for b who in consideration thereof give a bind to a to pay he pound  per annum as long as b enjoy the place equity will relieve against the bind a  by the interest which he have with the commissioner of excise procure for his  brother b a supervisor place in that office and in consideration thereof b  give a peer William er p bind for the payment of pound per annum to a by  halfyearly payment as long as b shall continue in the office b die have for  some year omit the payment of this annual sum of pound whereupon a sue the  bind against the widow and executrix of b who at law plead a sham plea of  payment and now bring this bill to be relieve against the bind peer William  for the defendant it be object that the bind be admit to be good at law by the  plaintiff not be advice to plead the statute of Edward against the sale of  office neither true in this case can the act be plead be make long before the  excise become a branch of the revenue that the law be with the defendant it  will be hard to take the benefit thereof from he especial when he be not  plaintiff in equity pray no aid of this court and have be guilty of no fraud  that though the bind in question have on a former occasion on a motion for a  injunction which the court grant in Jan be call a placebrocage bind and  represent as equal mischievous with a marriagebrocage bind yet it can with no  reason or justice be resemble to a marriagebrocage bind which have indeed at  length in the case of potter v hall though after great litigation and  difference in opinion be condemned in equity with a view to obviate a grow  mischief occasion by servant and other mean person take these bind for procure  marriage into great family which produce very unequal match to the unspeakable  uneasiness and discomfort of friend on account of such alliance whereas the  present case can be attend with no such inconvenience for if the officer who  give the bind shall be thereby induce to act corrupt or be guilty of extortion  he will be punishable in another manner by indictment peer William for such  corruption or extortion and if find guilty will forfeit his place that it can  be no objection that the whole salary or profit belong to a office ought to be  receive by he that execute it for this be frequent otherwise and yet tolerate  both in law and equity nay in some of the great office of the court in  westminsterhall the deputy who execute the office have common but a scanty  allowance the great part of the profit go to the principal who undergo none of  the trouble but by the Lord chancellor bind and engagement of this nature be  high to be discourage merit industry and fidelity ought to recommend person to  these place and not interest with the commissioner who it be to be presume  have they know from what motive the plaintiff at law apply to they on behalf  of his brother will have reject he the officer give money to a friend of the  commissioner for his interest be altogether as bad as give money or a bind for  money to the commissioner themselves which undoubted will have be relieve  against it be a fraud on the public and will open a door for the sale of  office relate to the revenue the take away from the officer what the  commissioner and the treasury think to be but a reasonable reward for his care  and trouble and a encouragement to his fidelity must needs be of the most  pernicious consequence and induce he to make it up by some unlawful mean such  as corruption and extortion and though the excise be no part of the revenue at  the time of make the statute of Edward yet there may be good ground to  construe it within the reason and peer William mischief of that law which be  rather a remedial than a penal one but suppose it to be a good bind at law so  be all marriagebrocage bind which yet be just condemned in equity as  introductive of infinite mischief and their have be much litigate and contest  fortify the opinion that prevail at last for it show what be the sense of the  supreme court of judicature after the inconvenience of such bind have be full  weigh and experience wherefore since engagement of this kind be like to  occasion corruption and extortion in office by have the profit of place  separate from the place themselves let the bind be deliver up and a perpetual  injunction award thereon and though this be a new case let the defendant pay  cost this be a bind for assist in promote a marriage which afterward take  effect the cause be hear first before sir John Trevor master of the roll who  relieve against the bind afterward the Lord summer reverse the decree at the  roll but the lord reverse the decree of reversal case in parliament see also  the case of Robert v Robert ante it be no new thing but usual that a interest  raise by a subsequent statute shall be under the same remedy and advantage as  a interest exist before thus peer William er p at commonlaw no acceptance of a  collateral recompense can bar a wife of her dower but the statute of h make a  jointure to be a bar which at that time extend only to a jointure make by act  execute in the husband lifetime afterward the h enable a man to devise his  land it be hold that if a man be to devise land to his wife in satisfaction of  her dower and she shall accept they this will be a bar within h c oh a b  because it be within the same equity and reason and the diversity be in the  manner only not in the thing so exchequer bill though create and make valuable  by a statute subsequent to that of car cap for erect the postoffice yet be  portable within the intent of the say act of car and on a letter in which such  bill be enclose be lose out of the office the postmasters be hold Chargeable  from the Lord Ch just holt argument in the case of lane v cotton and Frankland  in the reporter manuscript see also salk and it be observable that though the  other three judge of b r differ in opinion with the chief justice judgement be  give in that case for the defendant yet on a writ of error be bring in the  exchequerchamber the defendant be say to have make satisfaction to the  plaintiff which put a end to all further proceed Reg lib b fol et vide Bellamy  v burrow can tempt Tal Purdy v Stacy burr Harrington v Du chatel bro c c S c  dick Debenham v ox ves morris v MCullock Amb S c Eden Garforth v Fearon h Bl  parson v Thompson h Bl Hartwell v Hartwell Ves Blachford v Preston t r Thomson  v Thomson Ves Osborne v William Ves and see Richardson v Mellish bing  Humphreys v Humphreys peer William er report date peer William case sir  William Humphreys v his son Orlando Humphreys see Creasor v Robinson Beav Lord  chancellor Talbot a bring a bill against b to recover diverse sum on a account  and also pound on a stale bind of above twenty year stand the defendant  demurrer as to what relate to the bind for that the plaintiff may sue at law  the demurrer be allow the obligee in the bind sue the bind at law and get a  verdict after which the defendant bring his bill to be relieve against the  bind as have be satisfy the court order a injunction for that there be reason  to grant relief in equity though the defendant have demurrer to the bill bring  on the bind Mr Humphreys have bring a bill against his father sir William  Humphreys to recover diverse sum of money from the father and inter all a bind  of pound enter into in for the payment of pound and interest at the end of the  year the defendant demurrer as to that part of the bill that pray relief on  the bind or to recover the money due thereon for that the plaintiff have a  remedy for the same at law the bind appear to be in his custody and take in  his own name this demurrer be argue and allow afterward the son Mr Humphreys  bring a action at law on this bind and on to loosen ad diem plead obtain a  verdict videlicet theft the money secure by the bind be not pay upon this sir  William bring his bill set forth that this bind for pound be enter into  without any consideration and intend only to be in force until some settlement  shall be make on Mr Humphreys by his father who upon his son marriage in have  give he pound and covenant to give he pound more and that a purchase in Essex  of pound per annum have be settle on the son in possession also that the bind  be afterward throw aside among useless and neglect paper as a thing of no  value and have be satisfy by stock of the father that have peer William be  transfer to the son or to his order specify the particular Mr Humphreys to  such part of the bill as pray relief against the bind plead the verdict and  the former demurrer put in by sir William and allow and it be argue that this  be proper triable at law and after that the court and even sir William have  declare themselves of that opinion and the defendant have accord be at law and  recover there the father sir William must not now be admit to say it be proper  in equity and not at law for that will be go peer William er p backward and  forward and deal ill with the court and be as Mr strange observe a departure  which be no more to be endure in equity than it be at law upon a motion for a  injunction to stay proceed on the bind the court say that after a plea put in  there can be no motion for a injunction nor after a demurrer file cousin v  smith Ves but at the instance of the plaintiff it be order that the plea shall  come on the next day to be argue among the exception with leave that if the  plea shall be overrule then the plaintiff sir William Humphreys may move at  the same time for a injunction accord the plea come on to be argue after hear  counsel the Lord chancellor declare that this bind be a stale one of about  thirty year stand and the money due thereon not have be demand for very many  year and the suit on the bind on the son put be improper in equity sir William  Humphreys may reasonable expect prima fancy to have meet with success at law  it be a rule that after twenty year and no interest pay during that time a  bind shall be presume to be satisfy anon Mod Winchelsea cause burr Oswald v  Legh t r unless something appear to answer that length of peer William time so  that the plaintiff sir William Humphreys have reason to insist by way of  demurrer that this be proper at law where if it bad go for he it have cut  every thing short and make a end of the demand but though this matter be now  find against the obligor it be nevertheless hard to say that he shall be bar  of any equity he may have against the bind as suppose the same be real intend  only to secure a provision for the son until a settlement shall be make which  settlement have accord be make or suppose the bind have in fact be satisfy by  a transfer of the father stock or any other way sure there can be no doubt but  that the obligor under these circumstance ought to e relieve consequent it be  no bar to say to the father you allege this bind wet proper triable at law  which have be so do and therefore you can have no relief in equity now if this  be so then the answer which shall support the plea be general and not answer  the particular charge in the bill the plea will be insufficient and must be  overrule and the plaintiff have by the order liberty to apply for the  injunction it be a motion of course and must be grant but this controversy be  between a age father and a only son be the court say fit to be agree and  thereupon it be recommend to Mr attorneygeneral on the one side and Mr Verney  on the other to endeavour to compromise the difference and end the matter  amicable the produce a receipt for interest within twenty year endorse on a  bind by the obligee though the time when such receipt be write and sign do not  appear otherwise than by the endorsement itself have be hold sufficient to  take off the presumption of payment see the case of the Lord Barrington v  Searle in parliament Feb upon a writ of error from the exchequer Chamber bro p  c SC Str Lord raym and see Lord hardwicke observation in Glynn v the bank of  England ves sen