chancery report lake contra fillip car foe plea of privilege overrule the  defendant have plead the privilege of the court of exchequer and that they  ought not in respect thereof to be draw to answer the plaintiff bill in this  court albeit the constant precedent of this court be to the contrary chancery  report er p this court order the defendant to show cause why the plea shall  not be over rule the defendant produce a precedent in or Elizabeth not contra  Hutton and the Lora keeper declare he have heretofore see that precedent but  have also see very many precedent in this court to the contrary but however it  be in point of precedent yet the defendant plea be insufficient plead  therefore and for that neither by law nor by any precedent any more than only  one plea be to be admit to the jurisdiction of a court therefore in this case  the plea be insufficient plead the defendant ought to answer beside this suit  at the exhibit of the bill be a joint suit against sir Nicholas fortescue who  for ought appear have no privilege in the exchequer and though sir Nicholas  fortescue be dead yet when the court be at the first duly chancery report and  lawful possess of the plea his death ought not to give any more privilege to  the other defendant to draw the Cause from this court than they shall have  have at the beginning or while he live and therefore his lordship do adjudge  the defendant plea to be insufficient and order the defendant to make a direct  answer to the plaintiff bill in this court Kennedy v vanlore chancery report  er report date kennedy con owner vanlore car f of decree repugnant c this case  be upon a plea and demurrer videlicet that the plaintiff by his first bill  pretend that sir Jo Kennedy his brother have transfer his right in equity  touch the land in question to he and pray relief in equity against Ferrer  gossom and Johnson who sell the say land by virtue of the decree of this court  and against sir Peter vanlore who purchase the say land which bill in october  James be dismiss after which sir Jo Kennedy be dead and the plaintiff insist  himself to be relieve both b the say deed and as heir and administrator to his  say brother do James to exhibit his bill against the say sir Peter vanlore in  his lifetime to be relieve for the say land or the chancery report overplus of  the value thereof to which bill the say sir Peter put in his plea and demurrer  set forth the several order and decree touch the same and the purchase and  consideration by he pay be pound for a reversion depend upon the life of the  lady ewer which plea and demurrer be report insufficient by a master of this  court yet at argue the same afterward in this court the say plea and demurrer  be Feb James adjudge sufficient and the bill dismiss and dismission sign and  enrol after which the say sir Peter by deed car convey the say land to the  defendant the lady vanlore his wife during her widowhood and after to his  child and grandchild many of they infant and after die after which the  plaintiff exhibit another bill against the say lady vanlore and sir Edward  Powel for the aforesaid land and also two bill and fifty acre of meadow which  the plaintiff insist be not in sir Peter Vanlores purchase make from Ferrer  gossom and Johnson and also for pound which the plaintiff insist that the say  sir Peter do not pay of his purchasemoney which be still in sir Peter hand to  which bill the say defendant plead and demurrer as aforesaid and the master  again report the same insufficient chancery report yet the court again adjudge  the same sufficient and dismiss the bill since which the plaintiff exhibit a  new bill against the defendant and the child and grandchild of the say sir  Peter for the say land mill meadow and the pound to which they plead as before  and the master report the same insufficient and thereupon the Cause be debate  and hear at large and the first day of June a order be make recite the whole  substance and progress of all the business and proceed in this court touch the  say land at Tunbridge as well in the time of the now Lord keeper as in the  time of his lordship predecessor the Lord Elesmere Lord Verulam and the Lord  bishop of Lincoln by which it be then order that the plaintiff shall by the  first day of the last term produce precedent where this court have heretofore  give relief for matter in equity mention in order before any judicial order  and decree make for recovery thereof and also to search whether the decree  mention in the say order be sign and enrol and show what matter he can for  maintain this bill the main point now insist on by the plaintiff to maintain  his bill be that sir chancery report er p Peter vanlore be no party to  chancery report the suit between sir Jo Kennedy and the feoff and that sir  Peter come in and purchase pendent light and that the land be not sell at a  full value as they be then worth at the time of the sale and that the say Lord  Elesniere be not acquaint with the purchaser accord to the intention of the  former order and that the decree whereupon the say sale be ground be after  reverse and that upon a hear before the late Lord chancellor Bacon be then  assist by the Lord chief justice of the common plea and Mr justice dodderidge  the court be of opinion that sir Peter shall have his money again but not the  whole benefit of his bargain and therefore it be then decree that sir John  Kennedy shall pay as well the say pound purchase money as also so much as sir  Peter pay to the say lady ewer for the possession with interest within a year  follow or else the land be decree to the say vanlore which decree not be draw  up and enrol a Commission be order to issue to survey the say land and sir  Peter to be pay what he be out of purse with interest either by some part of  the land or money and the plaintiff also insist that the say land be chancery  report worth pound per annum and that sir Peter pay but pound for the same and  many other reason be offer by the plaintiff for maintenance of the say bill  but his lordship have hear the matter debate at large and advice consider of  the order which be make in the time of his predecessor do find that because  the Lord Elesmere who decree the land to be sell do by his order provide that  his lordship shall be make acquaint with the sale and purchaser that the land  may not be sell at a under value and because there be no notice make appear  therefore it be allege that the purchaser come in pendent light whereas by  order of Dec James that because the order for sale of the land be not a  absolute order and decree the purchaser will not deal and then the Lord  Elesmere make the say order a absolute decree and thereupon the say land be  sell to the say sir Peter upon which his lordship conceive that the Lord  Elesmere take notice of the sale andPurchasers and this court find that the  Lord Bacon undertake the Cause as a arbitrator only and award sir Jo Kennedy  to pay sir Peter pound or else sir Peter to enjoy the say land which  arbitrament not take by sir John Kennedy the matter chancery report vas hear  in open court again and the Lord Bacon be assist with the judge aforesaid it  be decree that sir Jo Kennedy shall pay to sir Peter vanlore his money with  interest in a year or else the estate of sir Peter be thereby decree which  decree sir Jo Kennedy do not draw up nor inrol and the say sir Peter conceive  he have no Cause to do it and this court find by the order of Jan James by  which sir Peter be to take a proportion of land for his money upon a survey to  be take be make by the say Lord Bacon alone without consultation have with the  judge who assist his lordship former and be repugnant to the decree make by  the court assist as aforesaid without a bill of review and so this court see  no Cause why the say latter order shall be any way bind this court therefore  in regard of the decree and dismission aforesaid and in regard the defendant  claim under sir pet vanlore and have have so long possession and he claim as a  purchaser for valuable consideration by the decree of this court and his  estate establish by so many decree as aforesaid and for that the mill and  fifty acre of meadow which the plaintiff claim pretend they be comprise in the  general word of the original conveyance under which chancery report the  plaintiff claim it sufficient appear that the same be not comprise in the say  plaintiff conveyance but be convey upon a second purchase thereof make by sir  Peter of the lady Hunsdon for valuable consideration and for the main purchase  the same be but a reversion depend upon a contingency and if the lady ewer  have live as by course of nature she may the say vanlore have have a very near  bargain and beside this court do conceive that it stand with the rule of  justice that if land be buy in reversion expectant upon death and the tenant  for life die a purchaser by the decree of this court after such proceed as  aforesaid shall not then be draw to take his money again with interest  notwithstanding the pretence of pendent light and that this suit be not well  bring and as for the pound if it be not pay by sir Peter to the say Ferrer c  it be bar by the statute of limitation chancery report er p