case THORNICRAFT versus Harwood at the chancellor house Lord chancellor Mr  attorneygeneral for the plaintiff sir John Thornicraft the father of the  plaintiff be about eighty year of age and his son at a small allowance of  pound ayear in become acquaint with the defendant minshul who pretend in  friendship to he to grant he a annuity of pound ayear during the life of his  father for which the plaintiff covenant to transfer to minshul or order pound  south sea stock six month after the death of his father and minshul enter into  a bind of pound to the plaintiff for the payment of the annuity afterward  DCosta in concert with minshul advance pound on the covenant whereby minshul  insinuate to the plaintiff he shall be better able to supply his necessity and  pay he the annuity the money be pay to the plaintiff in note and a draft on  the bank but none of it come to the plaintiff hand and the plaintiff accord to  his agreement covenant to transfer ten thousand pound in south sea stock to  DCosta six month after the death of his father and afterward on his desire to  mosely report have the security alter and advance pound more the plaintiff  enter into a bind of pound to DCosta for the payment of pound after the death  of his father but the plaintiff receive but pound of this money sir John the  father soon after die and DCosta go beyond the sea and a commission of  bankrupt be take out against he Harwood the assignee bring a action on the  bind and this bill be for relief on payment of what be real advance by DCosta  with interest and for a perpetual injunction and your lordship be please to  grant we a injunction upon our give judgement subject to the order of the  court and the question be whether we be to pay the pound advance by DCosta or  only pound which be all the money come to our hand this bind be obtain by a  gross fraud and without any consideration minshul give no security but the  bind for the annuity though he agree to give the plaintiff real security and  he never receive but pound and so this be within the reason and authority of  the case of extravagant bargain with young heir where the court have always  set aside unreasonable security take for annuity during the life of the father  as against conscience berry versus pit vern the plaintiff father be tenant for  life of a great estate which by his death be to come to the plaintiff in tail  in he borrow pound of the defendant and confess two judgement of pound each  with defeasance that if the plaintiff outlive his father and within a month  after his death pay the defendant pound and if the plaintiff shall marry in  the lifetime of his father and shall from his marriage during his father life  pay the defendant interest for his pound the defendant shall vacate the  judgement and that it be the intent of the party if the plaintiff do not  outlive his father that the money shall not be repay the plaintiff father die  in and the bill be to be relieve against the say judgement upon payment of the  money lend with interest and Lord Nottingham do not think fit to relieve the  plaintiff against the bargain itself without pay the pound and interest from a  month after the plaintiff father death but this be decree be reverse by the  Lord chancellor jefferies who decree the defendant to refund all the money  except the pound lend and interest Mr solicitor general the question be what  relief we shall have against this bind the assignee insist to be pay double  the sum advance because of the contingency that the plaintiff will survive his  father but in the case of berry and pit mosely report er p this be determine  not to be a sufficient reason and that the clause that the money shall not be  repay if the father survive be put in only to colour the bargain for if the  heir die in the lifetime of his father he be worth nothing and mosely report  of course unable to pay we have be notorious overreach by minshul and if  DCosta be concern in the fraud we ought to relieve though none of the money  come back to he it be unconscionable and fraudulent in he to demand pound and  give a colour to believe he be privy to the whole fraud and though he be not  concern in the fraud the plaintiff ought not to be charge with more than come  to his hand vern vern the plaintiff with other young heir be draw in by  Slystead with the concurrence of sir William smyth to buy good at a  extravagant price and to accept of assignment of have security and joint to  enter into security for the payment of the money agree on the bill be to be  relieve against those security and the court declare that the plaintiff shall  be liable only to so much of the good as come to his own hand and shall not be  answerable for his companion here we be not joint bind with minshul but be  defraud by he and he be in prison and worth nothing N B Lord Nottingham in one  day make eleven decree against Stystead and after the first decree the second  cause be open and so every one in their order and the council inform his  lordship that every cause be of the same nature he order the register to draw  up the same decree in each cause different to move Mr Verney for the defendant  these bind have be adjudge good at law because of the hazard and be of the  nature of bottomry bind on one contingency the obligee be to have nothing on  the other double the money he advance and this court will never presume a  fraud especial when DCosta real advance the pound to the plaintiff as be prove  by a account find among the paper of DCosta make up and sign by the plaintiff  Lord chancellor I think all bind in general enter inio in expectation of the  father death ought to be discountenance and be not like a fair adventure on  bottomry so that the plaintiff must certain be relieve but the question be in  what manner there be no doubt but DCosta pay the pound to the plaintiff but  whether there appear sufficient proof that he be concern in the cheat that it  shall not remain with he he be not original in the contrivance but minshul be  whole concern in it and little credit be to be give to his testimony where it  be not support by other circumstance the sum of his evidence be that in biron  bring he acquaint with the plaintiff and he agree with he in order to supply  his necessity to pay he a annuity of pound a mosely report year during his  father life and the plaintiff be to covenant to transfer to he or his assignee  pound south sea stock after the death of his father that he helbert and DCosta  do afterward concert to cheat the plaintiff DCosta be to advance pound and the  plaintiff be covenant to transfer pound south sea stock to he but he afterward  swear that DCosta advance the money on the bind and not on the transfer of the  security and that the plaintiff be not to keep this money to his own use but  he wary avoid say for who use nor he do not swear that DCosta be to have any  of it and therefore he be not to be affect with the transaction and he may pay  part of it to minshul as agent to the plaintiff who acquaint he that he want  money and will there before transfer the security to DCosta who be ready to  advance it and minshul be to retain the money to supply the plaintiff occasion  but this be all talk between he and the plaintiff only and he do not say that  DCosta know of it and minshul be to have pound to pay helbert several sum out  of it which he agree for before he will introduce he to DCosta which he do not  pretend DCosta know of therefore on the plaintiff payment of pound and  interest the defendant Harwood be to acknowledge satisfaction on the judgement  and neither side be to have cost the plaintiff insist he ought to have cost  because though the assignee be a stranger to this transaction he demand the  pound and the defendant claim cost because the plaintiff be relieve from a  penalty vern vern Chan Cas sign and scale be a good publication of a will  mosely report er p