case bell versus read December Mr baron clark sit for Lord chancellor in may a  bill be bring against the defendant for tithe the that of April the cause be  hear at the roll and a account decree and the defendant direct to pay what  shall respective be find due to a second bill for the same matter the  defendant plead the first and the decree Mr baron clark allow the plea as the  defendant will otherwise be put to double expense and double vexation the  plaintiff as rector of Blunsden in Wiltshire bring his bill against the  defendant as occupier of land in the parish for the great and small tithe and  pray that they may come to a account with he for the tithe which be due and  Payable to the plaintiff and that they may pay to he all and singular his  tithe and duty for the future as they shall accrue and grow due as long as he  continue rector there the defendant as to so much of the bill as seek any  account or discovery of the tithe arise in Blunsden at any time before the  that of April plead that before the plaintiff exhibit his present bill he do  in may exhibit his first bill against the defendant for a account and  discovery of the tithe arise in Blunsden and by that bill pray that the  defendant may pay the plaintiff the full value of such tithe with which the  defendant be Chargeable and which shall appear to be due to the plaintiff and  also that the defendant may pay to the plaintiff all his tithe for the future  as they shall grow due so long as he continue rector of Blunsden and on the  atkins that of April that cause be hear before the master of the roll and it  be order to be refer to Mr Bennet to take a account of what be due to the  plaintiff from the defendant for all the tithe demand by the plaintiff bill  and that they shall pay he what shall respective be find due from each of they  and in pursuance of the decree the plaintiff have leave with the master three  distinct charge against the three several defendant and examine witness in  order to support his charge and also exhibit interrogatory before the master  for the examination of the defendant who have each of they put in their  several answer and examination to the interrogatory and in regard the  plaintiff be by his present bill seek the same relief and discovery atkins er  p as he seek by his former bill and as be already provide for he by the decree  accord to the usage of this court in case of this nature the defendant do  therefore plead the former bill answer decree c in bar to so much and such  part of the plaintiff bill as aforesaid Mr Tracy atkins in support of the  defendant plea say that the second bill must either be bring for vexation mere  or proceed from ignorance and want of know the practice of this court for he  apprehend there be a material difference between the decree of the exchequer  for a account of tithe and the decree of this court that there they be direct  to the time of fill the bill only but here to the time of the master report  that Lord chancellor seem to be of this opinion in the case of the archbishop  oh f York versus sir mile Stapleton and other February atk S c that be a bill  bring for a account of tithe and to establish the custom of set out corn in  stack his lordship direct a issue to try the custom and say though it will be  time enough to search for precedent as to the manner of direct the account  when the cause come back after trial yet he take the difference between the  course of proceed in the court of chancery and the court of exchequer to be  this that there they direct a account of tithe no further than the bring of  the bill but here the rule of the court in general be where a account of tithe  be decree that it shall be carry down even to the time of the master report  and not to the fill of the bill only Mr Tracy atkins observe further that the  rule be the same in similar case where the account be to be take and that in  atkins the case of Bulstrode versus Bradley atk S c Michaelmas term Lord  chancellor be please to say it be the constant practice of the court in decree  against a mortgagee upon a bill for redemption or against a executor to  account to direct it without future word and yet if the person decree to  account receive any thing subsequent to the decree it be inquirable before the  master equal with sum receive before the decree that if this be the practice  the plaintiff by the decree in the first cause may carry the account full as  far under the first suit as he can under the second and consequent the last be  multiply suit unnecessary without any advantage to the plaintiff or answer any  end but what he have already or may have obtain under the former decree Mr  baron clark the defendant plea of a former suit depend for the same matter  ought to be allow vide Mitfords plead or otherwise the defendant may be put to  double expense and double vexation as possible if the second cause be to  proceed the decree may be different from the decree in the former suit as to  the difference in practice between the two court the exchequer and chancery it  be undoubted such as have be insist on by the defendant counsel and in decree  for account of tithe in the court of chancery they be not draw up different  from decree to account in other matter but be general to account for all tithe  that be due without specify any particular time charge in the bill or limit  the account to any certain determinate time so Carleton v Brightwell p W  archbishop of York v Stapleton atk but in the case of Newt v chamberlain in  the house of lord upon a appeal from the court of exchequer it be order that  the tithe shall be continue to be pay in future bro p c bro p c and ed Eq ab  pl S c and as accord to the practice of this court a account for tithe may be  carry on as long as the suit be depend between the party it will be vexatious  if the plaintiff shall be allow to proceed in a second bill for the same  individual tithe I ought therefore to allow the plea as to the particular  period of time cover by it the that of April the time when the cause be hear  and decree make and it be allow accord atkins er p