case stint versus BAILIS at the roll Eq can ab pl pl against natural justice  that any one shall pay for a bargain which he can have the bill be to be  relieve against a contract in write for the sale of eleven share of the  lustring company at pound a share with the pound per cent which the company  have call in and which the defendant the seller have agree to pay the article  of agreement be date Aug and the money to be pay on the then next open of the  company book at which time the defendant be to transfer the share to the  plaintiff the scrivener draw the article accord to these instruction but at  the meeting of the party in order to seal the defendant the seller of the  stock insist that h will not sell unless the plaintiff will agree to pay the  purchase money at all event at such a day certain whether the book do then  open or not and the stock be then rise the plaintiff consent to execute a  endorsement on the article to that peer William purpose which article and  endorsement be execute at the same time in a tavern on the that of August a to  know facias issue to repeal the patent grant to this company and at the same  time a proclamation be publish to forbid proceed in transfer and a act of  parliament Geo cap afterward pass make it a prmunire to have any deal with  those bubble this part of the g c be repeal by saint g c the company remit the  call of pound per cent and in lieu thereof accept pound per cent but never  afterward open their book nor as their own secretary depose be they ever  likely to do so the defendant Bailis bring a action on the article to which  the plaintiff have peer William er p plead non be factum and on a verdict for  Bailis at law Stent sue out a writ of error and on bring a bill in this court  obtain a injunction at the hear of this cause it be object for the defendant  saint that though this be a hard case on the now plaintiff yet that it have be  likewise hard on the defendant who be not a contriver of the project but a  sufferer by it have himself buy stock at high rate dly that equity ought in  such case to stand neuter and to lot the hardship rest where the law have cast  it and at law the now defendant have a verdict peer William dly that it can  not be pretend here be any fraud on the defendant side who from the time of  the contract make be a trustee for the buyer at who risk any accident which  have fall upon the stock from the time of the contract must be and that this  be not unreasonable since he will have be entitle to the benefit of it have it  rise in the price and that though the book have be shut up for some time yet  it be impossible to know but that they may open again and that in a little  time thly as to the call of pound per cent to be pay by the buyer though these  be afterward countermand and instead thereof pound per cent have be accept  this be say to be do in pursuance of order and bylaw make by the company to  which every purchaser and proprietor must submit and all that the defendant  Bailis be to sell be his right which let it have be what it will the plaintiff  be to pay so much money for it and if the act of parliament have make this  matter criminal or the deal in ib a prmunire the now plaintiff may have take  advantage of it at law thly that if the money have happen to have be pay sure  equity will not have compel it back again and as equity will not perhaps have  help the defendant to the debt have it turn out a lose bargain so there be as  little reason for it to interpose or deprive the defendant of the advantage  which he have now gain at law by the verdict master of the roll it be against  natural justice that any one shall pay for a bargain which he can have there  ought to be quid pro quo but in this case the defendant have sell the  plaintiff a bubble or moonshine peer William it be impossible that this  bargain shall ever be make good to the plaintiff for here be proof by the  company own secretary of his have advice with three eminent counsel who all  agree that the company can justify accept any more transfer and the money can  be say to be due in conscience suppose the plaintiff to be incapable of come  at what he contract for and in consideration whereof he be to pay his money if  I shall buy a house and before such time as by the article I be to pay for the  same the house be burn down by casualty of fire I shall not in equity be bind  to pay for the house and yet the house may be build up again but doubt it will  be impossible to set up the company again as in the other case the seller may  do the house vide Cass v huddle vern ante vol note it be considerable that the  contract be make in which be near four year since and the book have never be  open since it be to be presume they never will as to the objection that the  plaintiff here may have defend himself at law he be sharing in sin and  therefore can not I doubt have take advantage of the statute beside matter of  fraud be cognisable in equity ante colt versus woollaston Arnold as well as at  law the original contract be to pay the purchasemoney upon the transfer both  which be to be make simul semel and the meaning of the endorsement be no more  than that if the book shall not open on the very day that be appoint for that  purpose the now plaintiff will not insist upon the precise time but will pay  the money peer William but still he must be suppose to have be under a  expectation that in a reasonable time the book will open and a transfer be  make to he certain it can be imagine that the plaintiff will ever have be  prevail upon to covenant for the payment of the money at a precise day have he  entertain the least apprehension that the book will never have open the seller  in this case be the chief actor he go to market with the bubble and since no  transfer can be make let there be a perpetual injunction and let the defendant  at the plaintiff charge enter satisfaction on the judgement peer William er p  afterward in Michaelmas term there be a rehear of this cause before Lord  chancellor king when it be insist for the plaintiff Stent that it be indeed  very reasonable the plaintiff shall run the risk of the fall of the stock be  it to fall ever so low but though it be fall yet ought he still to have some  stock for his money on the other side it be say that in this case the  plaintiff and defendant must both be intend to know what they be traffic in  videlicet in a matter of a very precarious nature in stock which be in the  power of the company in regard they can stop any further transfer and shut up  the book at their pleasure and the last agreement between both party be that  the defendant shall have his money in all event whether the book open or not  and since there be no fraud to be impute to the defendant who have himself be  a fair purchaser of his stock and not the first projector or inventor the loss  ought to rest where the law have lie it and each side peer William have equal  equity there can be no room for the court to interpose Lord chancellor king I  can divide the loss but will recommend it to both party to treat together and  share the same and for that purpose a day be give to the party who as I hear  agree the matter