case brend versus brend accuracy doubt Trulock v Robey Ph eoden die Eq can ab  pl pl pl Ch can S c a man marry a jointress of house which be burn down and  they borrow pound to rebuild and levy a fine sur concess and by deed between  the husband and conusee the equity of redemption be reserve to the husband and  his heir he lie out pound in building and die decree the wife and not the heir  to redeem upon a demurrer to a bill of review the case be thus the defendant  have a jointure in some house in London before the fire of pound per annum the  house be burn down and then the wife and husband borrow pound to build upon  the ground and levy Vernon chancery case er p a fine sur concess for  ninetynine year if the wife live so long and a deed be make between the  conusee and the husband wherein the husband covenant to repay the mortgage  money with interest and the equity of redemption be limit to the husband and  his heir but the wife be no party to this deed the husband expend or pound in  building upon this ground and die the question be whether the jointress or the  heir of the husband shall redeem the Lord chancellor Nottingham have decree it  to the wife and now upon argue the demurrer the Lord keeper be of the same  opinion for that the wife be no party to the deed of redemise by which the  redemption be limit to the husband and the wife be Vernon chancery case a  jointress and have grant a term for year only out of her estate for life there  rest a reversion in her which natural attract the redemption vide Howard v  Harris ante and say if the cause have come original before he and there have  be asset sufficient the husband have covenant to pay this money he will have  decree it clear to the wife it be as little as a husband can reasonable do to  rebuild the house and put his wife jointure in as good plight as it be before  and therefore allow the demurrer to the bill of review Reg lib a fol cite in  Jackson V Parker Amb see on the right of the equity of redemption of the wife  estate where mortgage by husband and wife Clinton Hooper bro Charles Rep Ves  jun inn v Jackson Ves Bligh Ruscomb v hare dow Kinnoul v money swan r Pitt v  Pitt turner in this case a debate arise touch the state of the matter of fact  in a decree and it be complain that the register now draw up decree in such a  manner as that no bill of review can be bring for they only recite the bill  and answer and then add that upon the read of the proof and hear what be  allege on either side it be decree so and so and never mention what particular  fact be allow by the court to be sufficient prove and what not that so upon a  bill of review it may appear to the court upon what fact the decree be ground  the Lord keeper declare he will not allow of that way of draw up decree in  general but that the fact that be prove and allow by the court as prove shall  be particular so mention in the decree otherwise if bill of review be bring  those fact will be take as not prove upon a bill of review the plaintiff can  assign for error that any of the matter decree be contrary to the proof in the  cause Mellish v William ante for else a decree can never be reverse by a bill  of review but all erroneous decree must be reverse upon a peal vide broad v  broad Ch can probable the same case and on appear as on a bill of review the  cause must be on the same evidence as in the original cause there can be no  examination de to make new Addison v Hindmarsh post et vide anon Freem Rep but  paper in the hand of a party to the former cause after publication pass though  not produce may be read upon a bill of review sir Thomas standish v Radley atk