case harvey versus Montague January in court Lord keeper Vid ante case the  case be Mr Harvey be possess of a great personal estate die and make the  plaintiff sir Thomas Harvey mid mrs Elizabeth Harvey his widow executor Vernon  chancery case er p and direct by his will that pound of his personal estate  shall be invest in land and that mrs Harvey shall receive the profit thereof  for her life and make sir Thomas Harvey residuary legatee sir Thomas Harvey  exhibit a bill against mrs Harvey set forth that he be residuary legatee and  yet mrs Vernon chancery case Harvey have get the whole estate of the testator  into her hand and convert it to her own use mrs Harvey insist on a deed make  during coverture whereby the great part of her husband estate be settle in  trust for her but sir John coell depose that this settlement be make in the  late time be contrive only to prevent sequestration and that cause come on to  be hear she be decree to account to sir Thomas Harvey for the personal estate  and that the deed of trust shall be set aside and she shall receive no more of  the testator estate upon which she go into France and refuse to perform the  decree and be under a sequestration afterward sir Thomas Harvey exhibit a bill  against the now defendant Mr Montague set forth that he owe pound and interest  on a mortgage to Mr Harvey the testator and that Mr Montague know of the  former decree and have be present at the hear of that cause and at the time  when the say decree be pronounce have since with a intent to elude and avoid  the decree pay this money to mrs Harvey as he pretend whereas if he have pay  the money it be with notice and after the former decree and therefore it be  pray that Mr Montague may pay this pound with interest the defendant insist  that he have pay and full satisfy all the mortgage money on such a day in July  which be in time subsequent to the decree and that he have pay it to a person  that in law be well entitle to receive it and have a legal discharge for the  same and be no party to the former decree nor bind by it nor ever serve with  any order upon it he ought not in a court of equity to be compel to pay it  over again this cause come on to be hear before the Lord chancellor Nottingham  in Michaelmas term last and the proof on behalf of the plaintiff be that the  defendant Mr Montague Vernon chancery case be a intimate acquaintance of mrs  harvey and one with who she advice in the management of her affair and that he  be present in court at the time of the decree pronounce it be therefore hold  by the court that this be no good payment though for the defendant it be  insist that this be no legal notice to Mr Montague that he be no party to the  former decree nor bind by it nun be bind by a decree but such as be party to  the suit Natchbolt v porter post vol say vide brown v booth ibidem where the  decree be that all the miner in a shall pay a tithe of lead over and on  cognizant fac all the miner in a for the time be or to come be bind for they  be within the letter of the decree and in a case where several cause be bring  to a hear together and some that be party to one suit be not so to another per  finch Ch the justice which be to be do on they all appear and it be decree  accord and you shall not sever they now and so decree against one that be no  partly to that suit anon Ch can and Tothill page mention a old case of chapman  v Bissow and Elizabeth where a decree be against a lessee and all claim under  he he surrender to he in reversion and he be adjudge to be bind by the decree  for so long time as the lease shall have endure say vide Iveson v Harris Ves  and particular p of that vol where per Eldon Lord Chan I have no conception  that it be competent to this court to hold a man bind by a injunction who be  not a party in the cause for the purpose of the cause nor be ever serve with  any order upon it and that he now have real pay his money as the same be full  in proof and have a good and legal discharge for it it be a very hard and  strange demand in equity to compel he to pay it again and in truth that clause  in the order that mrs Harvey shall receive no more of the testator estate be  insert in the decretal order by the clerk who draw up the decree and be not in  the minute nor direct by the court and the decree be not that no person shall  pay any money to mrs Harvey for that in itself will be a void clause to all  that be not party to the decree but only that she shall receive no more and if  Mr Montague be decree to pay this money to the plaintiff he will not only be  decree to pay his money twice but in truth the plaintiff will have a double  satisfaction decree he for by the former decree mrs Harvey be to account to he  for all money by her receive and be now under a sequestration for it and in  truth the plaintiff have receive satisfaction for it by the sequestration have  under it not only receive the profit of the which she be to receive for her  life but also the profit of pound per and which be her own land of inheritance  and that therefore these decree be repugnant and do fight with one another but  notwithstanding all that can be say the payment to mrs Harvey be decree to be  a ill payment and it be refer to a master to take the account after this the  plaintiff get a report ex part and Mr Montague have petition and move by his  counsel for Vernon chancery case a rehear be deny it and then he move to go  back to the master this be but a report ex part which at last be obtain and it  be allege that Mr Montague have pay mrs Harvey some money for her necessity  before the first decree it be direct that what he have real pay before the  decree of the principal or interest shall be allow he on account and his own  oath to be take as to the interest when he come before the master he prove  that he have actual pay pound of the Vernon chancery case er p principal money  even before the first decree pronounce and the master make his report to that  effect and now the matter come before the Lord keeper upon exception to the  master report the proof for the defendant be make by one Mr Phalizo that the  defendant just before he be recall from his embassy in France have return  thither pound in money which be leave in Phalizos hand and have raise by the  sale of the furniture of his house there the sum of pound more which be  likewise leave in Phalizos hand and that the defendant Mr Montague have bill  from Phalizo for payment of this money and that Mr Montague before the first  decree pronounce give order to mrs Harvey to receive this money of Phalizo who  swear that thereupon he become her paymaster and that afterward in time  subsequent to the first decree the first decree be make d Nov and the bill  deliver in April r l Mr Montague give new order or bill to mrs Harvey to  receive this money and that thereupon she have occasion for it he do actual  pay it to her and she with her own hand endorse on the counterpart of the  mortgage the receipt of this money hereunto for the plaintiff it be object  that the defendant can not be admit to this proof it be contrary to his own  oath who in his answer have swear the money pay on such a day in July dly that  Phalizos deposition ought not to be read in this case for that he before  Vernon chancery case the hear be examine in chief upon a interrogatory that  lead he to discover the several time of the now pretend payment and that  therefore he ought not to be examine to the same matter again after the hear  for now publication be pass and the defendant see where the matter pinch will  supply it by strain of Phalizos evidence vide Jones v Purefoy ante p and case  cite in note there but where a witness be examine before the hear while she be  interest and after the hear and decree for a account she release her interest  she be order to be examine again before the master and her deposition allow to  be read Callow v mime post vol Callow v mince evident S c pre Ch and  deposition take while party disinterest order to be read though the party  depose become afterward entitle to the estate in question gosse v Tracy post  vol p wms if such a proceed shall be allow it will occasion perjury and  especial in this case where Phalizo have swear the money pay in July dly admit  the case to be accord to this new proof yet in truth this be no payment for Mr  Montague may have revoke his order give to Phalizo for payment of this money  to mrs Harvey and the money be not actual receive till after the first decree  and that bill of exchange be not assignable but by endorsement only and it  carry a suspicion with it that there be no witness either to the order give to  mrs Harvey or to the endorsement on the mortgage deed and the endorsement be  not upon the original deed but on the counter part remain in Mr vide Jones v  Purefoy ante p and case cite in note there but where a witness be examine  before the hear while she be interest and after the hear and decree for a  account she release her interest she be order to be examine again before the  master and her deposition allow to be read Callow v mime post vol Callow v  mince evident S c pre Ch and deposition take while party disinterest order to  be read though the party depose become afterward entitle to the estate in  question gosse v Tracy post vol p wms Montague possession to this it be answer  that Mr Montague answer and Phalizos former deposition be very consistent with  what be now prove before the master for though they swear the mortgage be full  satisfy and pay on such a day in July yet great part of the money may have be  pay before as in truth it be though the complete payment be not make till July  and that the plaintiff counsel can not be in earnest when they object against  Phalizos be examine after the hear for that be never deny in matter of account  and be so settle in the case of Sandys and Davison in the Lord hide time upon  long debate and that mrs Harvey accept of these bill and Phalizo swear he then  become her paymaster and her receive the nonev upon the afterward make this  agooc payment a binitio that Mr Montague can not have so revoke his order but  that mrs Harvey may have require payment thereof afterward and Phalizo may  have justify Vernon chancery case his payment thereof and as to the  endorsement be make on the counterpart of the mortgage the defendant counsel  conceive that be most proper it be fit Mr Montague shall have the evidence for  the payment of his money in his own hand and though there be no witness to it  yet it be full prove to have be all writ with mrs harvey own hand and it be a  evidence of the sincerity of this payment and that it be not do with a design  to have serve a turn for if so Mr Montague may have easy remove all these  doubt but the Lord keeper allow the exception to the master report and order  Mr Montague to repay the whole money Vernon chancery case er p whereupon c it  appear that the say bill be not deliver to mrs Harvey till his lordship  declare that he can not allow the pound to be real and good fide pay the that  of Oct but conceive the payment not to be till April aforesaid and after the  decree and do think fit and so order that the say exception do stand and be  allow and that the defendant do pay unto the plaintiff the whole pound mention  in the decree on the d of may next Reg lib a fol the reason upon which the  decree in this case be find do not appear but it be apprehend they do not  arise out of the doctrine respect the right of party as be subject to a decree  for the decree here can not it be conceive in any sense be say to bind any  right that be in the defendant Mr Montague by the payment of this money he do  not become amenable to the process of the court as in the case of contempt nor  be he dothed with any character which render he the subject of the service of  a order find upon the decree it not appear that he have even come in before  the master Bligh v earl of Darnley p wms but the decree appear to be find on  the circumstance and upon this broad general principle which must govern the  decision upon every other case under circumstance of a similar nature namely  that where a man wilful pay money into a wrong hand or a doubtful hand he must  abide the consequence and that a court of equity will oblige all person to  take notice of its decree as much as of judgement vide Searle v lane post vol  on rehear ibidem page sorrel v carpenter p wms say vide Worsley v earl of  Scarborough atk where say by Lord chancellor there be no such doctrine in this  court that a decree make here shall be a imply notice after the cause be end  but it be the pendency of the suit that create the notice send qure see also  bishop of Winton v pain Ves Metcalfe v Pulvertoft v b neux v Maltby swan  Gaskell v Durdin ba be more v Macnamara ibidem gore v Stacpoole dow on a suit  commence against a person have marry a ware of the court clandestine he appear  in court and present a affidavit state express that he have no notice at the  time of the marriage that his wife be a ware of the court Eldon Lord  chancellor nevertheless commit he to the fleet June Priestley v lamb Reg lib b  fol Reg minutebook Trin term vide Preston v tubbin post and case cite in not  there