case Southsea company v WYMONDSELL see ecclesiastical commissioner v north  eastern Ry   Ch d Gibbs v guild Q b d in re Mansell ex part Norton lt Lord  chancellor king Eq can ab pl pl the statute of limitation no plea where the  bill charge a fraud but then it shall be charge by the bill that the fraud be  discover within six year before the bill be filed In the case of the Southsea  company in who the estate of the late director be vest by act of parliament  where the statute of limitation may have be plead against the late director it  be pleadable against the company who stand but in such director place so where  though the assignee of the effect of a bankrupt claim under the act of  parliament yet as the statute of limitation may be plead against the bankrupt  by the same reason it be pleadable against such assignee the Southsea company  bring a bill against the defendant on a contract make by the defendant with Mr  surman the deputy cashier of the company in the year touch pound Southsea  stock suggest several fraud and show that by the statute Geo c against the  Southsea director all the estate good and effect of the say surman be vest in  the company for the benefit of the proprietor the defendant plead the statute  of limitation and that if any such contract be make by the defendant with  surman it be make above six year before the fill of the bill and deny the  matter of fraud it be insist that the plaintiff claim by the act of peer  William parliament that be a matter of record and the demand in question to be  take as a debt on record consequent not barrable by the statute of limitation  and it be compare to a action for tithe on the statute of Edward the six or of  debt on a escape c west c Richard c but the Lord chancellor hold this to be  clear otherwise for that the Southsea company can not be in a better case than  surman be against who as the defendant Wymondsell may have plead the statute  so may he also do against the company who stand but in Surmans place like the  case of a assignee under a commission of bankruptcy who though he claim under  the act concern bankrupt peer William er p and also by virtue of the  assignment which be under the great seal yet as he stand only in the place of  the bankrupt against who the statute of limitation be pleadable so be he the  assignee liable to be bar thereby it be then object that this bill be to be  relieve against a fraud and therefore not within the statute of limitation  fraud be a secret transaction and probable not discover within six year and  for this the Lord warrington case be cite where it be hold in this court and  affirm in the house of lord that a bill to be relieve against a fraud be not  within the statute of limitation booth v Warrington bro p c and Edward bro p c  and see Bicknell v gough atk Deloraine v brown bro c c on the contrary it be  say if the fraud be know and discover above six year before exhibit the bill  this though a fraud will be bar by the statute of limitation and that even in  the case of the Lord Warrington the statute be plead whereupon the plaintiff  the Lord peer William Warrington be advice to and accord do amend his bill by  charge that he do discover this fraud within six year before exhibit his bill  after which the Lord Warrington have a decree and that decree be affirm by the  lord as Mr mead who be of counsel in that cause inform the court wherefore it  be insist that in the present case it ought to be charge in the bill that the  fraud be discover within the six year if the fact be so and of this opinion be  the Lord chancellor see Hovenden v Annesley Sch and Lef but here be a charge  of great fraud and some circumstance thereof not full deny the defendant be  order to answer the bill with liberty for the plaintiff to except and the  benefit of the statute of limitation to be save to the defendant