case Howard versus harris wh t l c that Edward vol two p see marquis of  Northampton v Pollock Ch d a c novembris in court Lord keeper Eq can ab pl S p  Ch can SC ante case No agreement in a mortgage can make it irredeemable either  after the death of the mortgagor or upon failure of issue male of his body  restriction of redemption in mortgage discountenance in equity vide Newcomb v  Bonham ante p and case cite there Talbot v Braddill post Mr Howard settle a  jointure on plaintiff his lady before marriage which prove defective and not  of value accord to the marriage agreement he therefore afterward Vernon  chancery case er p make her a additional jointure of other land and afterward  Mr Howard in make a mortgage to the defendant Harris for secure pound with  interest in Vernon chancery case which among other part of the land belong to  the additional jointure be comprise and in the mortgage there be a special  clause of redemption videlicet that if Mr Howard or the heir male of his body  shall in June pay the principal sum of and per and interest in the mean time  then Mr Howard or the heir male of his body may reenter and Mr Howard covenant  that no one but he or the heir male of his body shall be admit to redeem this  mortgage and likewise covenant to pay the pound on the day of in the year and  pound per and interest in the mean time by halfyearly payment from the date of  the mortgage Mr Howard die without issue the plaintiff be a jointress of part  of the mortgage land and so entitle to redeem the whole in exhibit her bill to  redeem this mortgage the defendant by answer insist the land be now become  irredeemable this cause be hear before the Lord chancellor Nottingham and now  upon there defendant petition come to be reheard before the Lord keeper and be  by they both decree for the plaintiff for the plaintiff it be insist saint  that restriction of redemption in mortgage have be always discountenance in  this court and it will be a thing of mischievous consequence shall they  prevail for then it will become a common practice and a trade among the  scrivener go to fetter the mortgagors as to make it impracticable for they to  redeem accord to the precise letter of the agreement and the plaintiff counsel  insist that there be no more in this case against a redemption than there be  in every mortgage it be true here be a express covenant that none but Mr  Howard or the heir male of his body shall redeem and in every mortgage there  be a proviso that in case the money be not pay by such a day the mortgagee  shall hold the land discharge and not only so but there be likewise a express  covenant for further assurance so that in every mortgage the agreement of the  party upon the face of the deed seem to be that a mortgage shall not be  redeemable after forfeiture dly it be argue that it be a maxim here that a  estate can at one time be a mortgage and at another time cease to be so by one  and the same deed and a mortgage can no more be irredeemable than a distress  for a rentcharge can be irrepleviable the law itself will control that express  agreement of the party and by the same reason equity will let a man lose from  his agreement and will against his agreement admit he to redeem a mortgage dly  it be another stand rule that a mortgage can be a mortgage of one side only  vide Exton v greaves ante yet a mortgage be not in all case complete mutual  Talbot v Braddill post and here it be plain Mr Harris may make it a mortgage  for he have a covenant for the repayment of his mortgagemoney and for  precedent be cite the case of Kilvington versus gardener who be to redeem at  any time in his lifetime and sir Robert Jason case for the defendant it be  insist that this express agreement of the party ought to be pursue and they  pretend the same be make upon good consideration videlicet that the defendant  Harris have former purchase these very land from sir Robert Howard father of  the plaintiff S husband who pretend himself to be seize in fee but this land  be afterward evict upon pretence that sir Robert be only tenant for life and  the reason of this special clause of redemption be that in case Mr Howard  shall have issue male the estate may remain in the family but if he have none  it shall be leave to the defendant as something towards Vernon chancery case a  compensation for the loss in his purchase and Mr Harris be to submit to the  loss and not to question Mr howard title but as to this they have not a word  of it in proof say only that the defendant have make such a purchase but not  that this be the consideration of the agreement and it likewise appear that Mr  Howard claim by a ancient settlement from the Lord Suffolk and not by any  settlement make by his father sir Robert then it be insist that this  additional jointure be voluntary and the plaintiff ought not to take the  estate out of the hand of a purchaser but it be answer he be a purchaser for  no more than his mortgagemoney and one that come in by a voluntary conveyance  may redeem a mortgage and if the additional jointure be voluntary so likewise  be the agreement that none but Mr Howard or the heir male of his body shall  redeem and that be subsequent to the additional jointure Vernon chancery case  er p and it be further urge that the mortgage estate be a reversion after life  only and be at present but pound per and and that Mr Harris do actual borrow  the mortgagemoney to lend on this reversion and it can not be presume he will  have so do unless it have be in consideration that this mortgage have be make  in a special manner redeemable but it be answer that possible the defendant  may design such a catch bargain of this mortgage but that be a sort of  circumvention and the worst part of the case after long debate the Lord keeper  decree the mortgage shall be redeem the rather for that the defendant have a  covenant for repayment of his mortgagemoneys but say if the case have be that  a man have borrow money of his brother and have agree to make he a mortgage  and that Vernon chancery case if he have no issue male his brother shall have  the land such a agreement make out by proof may well be decree in equity but  then for the defendant the mortgagee it be insist that this mortgage have be  make ten year since and of a reversion where pound per and rend be only  reserve that in this case the defendant ought to have interest upon interest  otherwise he will be a great loser in this case but as to that it be answer  that the plaintiff bill to redeem be file so long since as and that the  defendant have by answer oppose the redemption and therefore from that time he  have no pretence to a allowance of interest for his damage and it be never  know in this court that interest upon interest be at any time allow in any  case but the Lord keeper be clear of opinion that as to so much interest as be  reserve in the body of the deed that shall be reckon principal Qure as to the  practice of the court in this particular vide Thornhill v Evans atk the court  will have regard in relieve as to interest where a less rate reserve upon due  payment than first stipulate to the length of the arrear brown v Barkham p wms  et vide earl of Macclesfield v Fitton ante and case cite in not there for it  be ascertain by the deed a action of debt will lie for it and therefore it be  reasonable that there shall be damage give for the nonpayment of that money  Qure as to the practice of the court in this particular vide Thornhill v Evans  atk the court will have regard in relieve as to interest where a less rate  reserve upon due payment than first stipulate to the length of the arrear  brown v Barkham p wms et vide earl of Macclesfield v Fitton ante and case cite  in not there but where the mortgagor sign a account whereby so much be admit  to be due for interest this will not carry interest unless the mortgagor by  any letter or write under his hand agree to make it principal brown v Barkham  p wms and per Lord chancellor Parker I conceive to make interest on a mortgage  principal there shall be a write sign by the party ibidem and a agreement make  at the time of the mortgage will not do but it be requisite that interest  shall be first grow due before agreement concern it can make it principal Lord  ossulston v Lord Yarmouth salk et vide Broadway v morecraft mosely and sir  Thomas Mierss case before Lord Harcourt mention in Bosanquet v Dashwood Forr  powell law of mortgage et seq et vide east India company v atkins comens and  whereas it be urge that this have never be practice and that there be not any  such precedent in the court and that if this be to be establish for a rule  every scrivener will reserve all his interest halfyearly from time to time as  long as the money shall be continue out upon the security which will be to  change the law and practice in this court and make all mortgagors pay interest  upon interest but the Lord keeper say he be clear in that distinction between  debt and damage and he see no inconvenience that can ensue it will serve only  to quicken man to pay their just debt and accord decree that after a Vernon  chancery case deduction of the yearly rend of the mortgage premise out of the  pound a year Payable for the interest the defendant shall be allow interest  for the residue of the say pound a year for which the defendant may have sue  at law and recover damage Reg lib a fol Vernon chancery case er p