c Churchill v grove et al S C Ch can Nels Nov car on a plea Lord chancellor  baron turner cognisee of a eigne statute upon account take part of the extent  in satisfaction without notice of a puisne judgement the plaintiff have a  judgement and a mortgage exhibit his bill against one that have a precedent  statute a against the mortgagor to discover wonder at be due upon the statute  and upon payment to set the statute aside the cognizee plead that he have  extend the recognizance come to a account with the mortgagor and there be  pound due he purchase part of the extend land for the same and assign the  other part to the mortgagor and this without notice of the plaintiff title and  be a purchaser for a valuable consideration and also plead that the plaintiff  have take the conusor of the judgement in execution thereon and therefore the  land can not be liable during his life on the plaintiff part as to the first  point it be insist that it do not appear that the defendant be a purchaser  there be no new money pay on the execute of the conveyance but that come in  for the money former due it be no purchase that it be common in equity for he  that have the subsequent judgement to be relieve against he that have the  precedent statute upon payment of what be due that therefore the defendant  pretend purchase be subsequent freeman to the plaintiff judgement ought not to  affect he that the plaintiff judgement be on record so every one ought to take  notice of they at his peril the defendant counsel insist that it be a purchase  that the defendant have part with part of the extend land which be as valuable  as money that it be the constant justice of this court that if a purchaser  good fide do buy in any eigne statute or judgement and there be a judgement  mesne between that and his title e that purchase of which he have no notice at  his purchase that he shall protect his purchase by the eigne encumbrance so  buy in and that though at law a purchaser must at his peril take notice of a  judgement because it affect the land yet when one pray the relief of this  court to have the benefit of a judgement he shall never have that relief  against a purchaser good fide unless he can prove express notice in the  purchaser of the say judgement when he purchase and upon this point the plea  be allow ante c p Snelling v squib Charles can Greswold v Marsham ibidem but  as for the other point that the plaintiff have take the conusor of the  judgement in execution it be confident affirm and not deny that it be no plea  because the freeman er p land will become Chargeable after the death of he in  execution see stat James c ante c p and that therefore the defendant ought to  answer and discover duplicity seem to have be a sufficient ground for overrule  the plea for though mere surplusage add to a good plea may be reject without  vitiate the form of defence claridge v hoar Ves yet we be tell there be no  case in which two defence offer by a plea have be separate and one allow as a  bar Mitf see however the corporation of London v corporation of Liverpool  Anstr where Thompson b hold a different doctrine though in that case the plea  be overrule see also append c note and cork v Wilcock mad Reg lib a fol plea  allow but plaintiff to be at liberty to reply to the same