case thomas SWANNOCK and penelope his wife against William lyford and other in  chancery that July wife not entitle to dower against a purchaser of the  inheritance who have get a assignment of a term original make previous to her  right of dower lib Reg b foe S c atk nom hill v Adam hark   Litt a hill ms p  on appeal Christopher smith seize of land in old Windsor and Egham by  indenture of that of October mortgage the premise to Joanna Whitfield for  ambler er p year to secure pound which mortgage be afterward assign to John  clarke upon the death of Christopher smith the equity of redemption descend to  William smith as his heir at law in William smith sell the premise to the  defendant Lyford for pound and convey the inheritance to he and his heir and  covenant for himself and Penelope ambler his wife to levy a fine which be not  do pound part of the purchasemoney be pay to clarke in discharge of the  mortgage and he on the same day assign the term to Biddle in trust for Lyford  to protect the inheritance Lyford afterward sell several part of the premise  to the other defendant William smith die abroad Penelope his widow marry the  plaintiff Swannock and they bring their bill to have dower assign out of the  premise and for a account of rend and profit the defendant insist on their  purchase and claim the protection of the term the cause be hear before sir  Thomas Abney baron sit for the master of the roll on the that February who  decree in favour of the plaintiff and order a commission to assign a three  part with the usual direction and a account of rend and profit c from this  decree the defendant appeal Lord chancellor it be argue for the plaintiff that  there be no case where the wife be preclude from dower of a equity of  redemption subject to a mortgage term if the mortgage be subsist she may  redeem it if it be satisfy and the term be assign to attend the inheritance  she be entitle to remove it out of her way that this be clear as against the  heir at law or devisee that it be as just and reasonable against a purchaser  especial where he know as he do in this case of her right on the other side it  be argue that at law she can have dower till after the term and though a court  of equity will relieve her against the term in case of a heir at law or  devisee yet it will not against a purchaser who have get a assignment of the  term and the case of Radnor v Vandebendy in Eq Cas Abr and shower parliament  case be cite as a determination in point Lord Hardwicke if this be a new case  it may be consider in another manner but this question have be settle in  respect to purchaser in Radnor v Vandebendy the plaintiff come to be relieve  against the severity of the law a dowress may redeem a term against a  mortgagee and remove it out of the way against a heir but can against a  purchaser of the inheritance who have take a assignment of the term to protect  his title it may have be proper at first to put tenant by the courtesy and  tenant ambler in dower on the same foot but the favour of the court have be  extend further to tenant by the courtesy than to tenant in dower this case  differ from Radnor v Vandebendy in no material circumstance nor do it appear  that the term be satisfy in that case at the time of the purchase if it have  be satisfy it will have be for the benefit of the husband the mortgage money  be pay by Lyford and yet it have be argue that the wife have a right in this  case to remove the term without pay a shilling it be object that the wife have  be put into a worse condition by the purchase and that the purchaser have  notice of her right of dower but that be so in Radnor v Vandebendy I do it see  any distinction between old and other term provide they be precedent to the  wife right of dower it be say the purchaser rely on the covenant to levy a  fine now that show it be mean the purchaser shall hold the premise discharge  of dower the same covenant be in Radnor v Vandebendy decree reverse and bill  dismiss without cost see brown v Gibbs and Dudley v Dudley pre Ch and bank v  Sutton p wms Wynn v William Ves darcy v black Sch Lef attorneygeneral v  Lockley Sugd vend App William v lamb bro c c Godwin v Winsmore atk maundrell v  maundrell Ves Willoughby v Willoughby t r post Cox v chamberlain Ves William v  Wray p wms do v Hilder b a in the case of mole v smith Jacob Lord Eldon after  refer to the principal case and other in which the doctrine of attendant term  be lie down say the result of they may be thus state when there be a old term  that be satisfy the inheritance be the estate the interest in the term attend  it if there be a first second and three mortgagee they be accord to their  respective gradation entitle to the benefit of the term if a subsequent  encumbrancer without notice get in the term he gain a priority if at the time  of advance his money he have notice of the previous encumbrancer he do not  gain priority as to dower there be this ambler er p difference if a person  purchase a estate on which there be a old term then although he have notice  that the vendor be marry and that his wife will be entitle to dower and  although the term be attendant on all interest in the inheritance and  therefore on the wife right to dower as well as the rest yet if he obtain a  assignment of the term the wife right be bar