brown case John Dunbar and other appellant robert wilson respondent that march  Mews big two the holder of a note deliver to he without endorsement after it  be become due and note for nonpayment shall not be say by injunction from  enforce a judgement at law obtain by default from the follow statement it will  appear that this judgement be not likely to be consider as a precedent for any  material purpose the appellant Dunbar employ one Sylva as his broker in some  illegal stockjobbing transaction and endorse to he a note draw by the  appellant Scandrett Payable to the appellant goble and by he endorse to Dunbar  for the balance between they this note not be pay when due be return to Dunbar  who pay Sylva part of the amount in money and deliver he a new note for the  remainder draw by Dunbar Payable to goble and endorse by goble and Scandrett  Sylva deliver this note without endorse it to Lejay and chamier who seven week  after it become due and have be note deliver the same also without endorse it  to the respondent to who they be indebt in a much large sum than the amount of  the note the house of lord affirm a order of l Northington c for dissolve a  injunction which prevent the respondent proceed at law to enforce judgement  obtain by default against the appellant see the case of brown v Davies term  Rep king b that where a note be endorse after it be due and appear on the face  of it to be dishonour it shall be leave to the jury on the slight circumstance  to presume fraud see also bank v Colwell and tailor v Mather there cite  Michael Lejay and Henry chamier of London merchant be indebt to the respondent  in a much large sum of money than the value of the note in question they or  one of they on the that of January in part payment of the same deliver to the  respondent the follow note videlicet pound London August ten week after date I  promise to pay to Martin goble esquire or his order six hundred and ten  hundred and ten pound value receive John Dunbar which note appear to be  endorse by Martin goble and Christopher Scandrett and for which the respondent  pay a valuable consideration by give Lejay and chamier credit in account for  the amount thereof soon after the note be thus pass to the respondent he carry  it to the appellant dunbar count house several time and be there trifle with  by Dunbar or his agent who refuse to pay he the note the respondent in Hilary  term bring three several action in the court of king bench against the  appellant and hold they to bail and declare against they in those action upon  this note in easter term follow the appellant file their bill in the brown  court of chancery against Isaac Fernandes da Sylva Andrew Harrison John  Harrison Robert bagshaw the respondent and the say Michael Lejay and Anthony  chamier state that in the month of may June and July the appellant Dunbar  employ Sylva as a broker to purchase for he at a future day a large quantity  of subscription for raise the supply grant by parliament for that year and  that on make up their account for those month of the difference in ready money  Dunbar give several note to Sylva for the same and among other a note date in  June draw by Scandrett Payable to goble for pound and endorse by goble to  Dunbar by he to Sylva and by Sylva to messieurs harrison and bagshaw that the  note not be pay when due be return to Dunbar who on the saint of August pay  Sylva pound in part and deliver to he a new note for pound residue thereof  which be the note abovementioned draw by Dunbar Payable to brown er p goble  ten week after date and endorse by the appellant goble and Scandrett that  Sylva deliver this note for pound to Lejay and chamier without endorse it who  on the saint of January seven week after the note become due and have be note  deliver the same also without endorse it to the respondent and that such  delivery be colourable and without real consideration that the note be give  upon a unjust and illegal contract and be only a stockjobbing note and  therefore the bill pray a injunction to stay proceed at law in the several  action and to have the say note for pound deliver up to be cancel the  respondent put in his answer to this bill and deny that he know or ever be  inform save by the bill that the note be give on account of any subscription  or stock and say that he be a entire stranger to the transaction between the  appellant and Sylva that he receive the note from messieurs Lejay and chamier  who be then actual indebt to the respondent in much more than the amount  thereof in discharge of part of such debt and deny that he know from who Lejay  and chamier have the note but insist that by take the same of Lejay and  chamier he the respondent good fide pay a full consideration for the note by  give they credit in account for the amount thereof and deny the whole of the  bill in Hilary term the respondent obtain three several judgement in the say  action by default and thereupon execute writ of inquiry and sign final  judgement in each cause on the that of may follow upon which the appellant  bring a writ of error in parliament in each cause and have transcribe the  record be order to assign error on a certain day which they not have do the  say writ of error be thereupon nonprossd and pound cost in each cause award to  the respondent and the record remit back to the court of king bench that  execution may he have of the say judgement the appellant on come in of the  respondent answer apply by motion on the that of may for a injunction brown  when his honour the master of the roll then sit for the Lord chancellor upon  hear counsel on both side be please to order that a injunction shall be award  against the respondent proceed at law on the note in question until the  defendant Sylva shall have put in his answer to the appellant bill and until  the further order of the court Sylva have put in his answer the respondent  obtain a order on the that of January to dissolve the injunction unless cause  and on the that of February follow the appellant show cause before the Lord  chancellor Northington against dissolve the injunction but his lordship  disallow the cause and order the injunction to be dissolve from this order the  appellant appeal insist c York c ambler that the note in question be give for  difference of subscription for the year pretend to have be buy by Sylva the  broker in his own name by the order and on the account of the appellant Dunbar  for the June payment but it appear that those subscription be neither deliver  or assign to Dunbar nor be he able to pay for they that the whole be a  fictitious speculative transaction and a gross fraud and imposition on Dunbar  but if real as those subscription be public security deliverable and  assignable the transaction be void to all intent and purpose by the act Geo c  entitle a act to prevent the infamous practice of stockjobbing that Lejay and  chamier be not good fide purchaser of the note for a valuable consideration  but take the same from Sylva without his endorse it as a further security for  a debt of pound S for secure which they have before take a note under the hand  of the appellant Dunbar for that sum date the saint of July Payable to Sylva  or order in six month with assurance from Sylva that the money will be pay  soon and in case the money upon it be not receive the note be to be return to  Sylva that this note be deliver by Lejay and chamier to the respondent who be  Chamiers fatherinlaw about six week after it become due and after it have be  note and without be endorse by either of they because no consideration be pay  by the respondent at the time of the note be deliver to he nor do he say that  he pay a full and valuable consideration for it but only that Lejay and  chamier be indebt to he in much more than the amount of the note that the  contract on which the note be give be null and void to all intent and purpose  the note be so also and especial brown er p in the hand of one who only  pretend to have take it in account upon credit and consequent not as a  purchaser but subject to all the equity of fraud or want of consideration with  which it be original affect that the appellant be proper and even under a  necessity of resort to a court of equity for a discovery of the transaction  and to have the note deliver up no part of this relief be obtainable in a  court of law that the merit of the appellant case have not be nor can be hear  in the action bring upon the note and it be not only of the utmost brown  consequence to the appellant Dunbar but be also of general and great  importance to the public to have the matter discuss upon the merit as a mean  of prevent the like iniquitous practice of broker for the future that upon the  motion for continue the injunction the appellant Dunbar offer by his counsel  to pay the money recover on the judgement into the bank in the name of the  accountant general of the court of chancery to wait the event of hear the  cause in that court so that the respondent can not be prejudice if the merit  of the case be in his favour and if they be not it be high unjust and against  conscience that he shall have execution upon a judgement obtain by default on  the other side it be say f Norton W de grey that note or bill give for the  purpose mention by the appellant upon the sale of new stock subsequent to the  act of Geo at a future day by a person not actual possess of such stock and  pay away for a valuable consideration to person unaffected with notice of the  transaction be not void by law nor make void by that statute which only make  void the contract relative to stock then in be and as between the party  themselves and inflict penalty on they but never mean to affect innocent  person and by the act of d Geo III c for raise by annuity the sum of twelve  million that sum be to be raise at nine different time and receipt give at the  bank for the same and such receipt be make assignable at any time before the  that of December and be not to be make stock till the whole payment be  complete so that if such subscription be within the act of that Geo two at all  they be not within it till they become stock and the appellant Dunbar as well  as a great many other person purchase subscription for a future day of payment  under a apprehension that they will sell for a advance price at the time of  delivery but the event prove otherwise he will now endeavour to invalidate his  own contract but though such note shall be deem within the act of that Geo two  it will not follow that the note in question be so that note not have be  original give upon any such contract or deal in stock but the same together  with the sum of pound be give and pay by the appellant Dunbar in discharge of  a note of pound and be a new and different security independent of any such  contract that if this note can be consider as within the act of parliament  advantage may have be take thereof at law and there be no equitable  circumstance to entitle the appellant to any relief in a court of equity for  the respondent have deny by his answer that he know or ever hear of any of the  transaction between Dunbar and Sylva or that the note be negotiate from Sylva  to harrison and bagshaw or that he know from who Lejay and chamier have the  same but that he take the note from they in part payment of a much large sum  which be then due to he and give they credit in account for the same it be  therefore conceive that a court of equity ought not to give any relief against  the respondent it be a invariable rule brown in court of equity not to  interpose to the prejudice of person who be purchaser for valuable  consideration and have no notice of any claim or interest that any other  person have in or against the thing so purchase that it will be injurious to  trade and dangerous to credit and affect the currency of negotiable note and  inland bill of exchange and may hurt many innocent person if negotiable note  original give for subscription at a future day or to answer any difference in  the price which happen thereon and endorse to other for valuable consideration  without notice upon what account such note be give shall be deem void in the  hand of honest and good fide purchaser for in that case no person will be safe  in accept any note or bill whatever in the course of trade or merchandise  unless he know the consideration for which such note be give after hear  counsel on this appeal it be order and adjudge that the same shall be dismiss  and the order therein complain of affirm jour vol p brown er p and it appear  by the answer of Isaac Fernandes de Sylva put in to the appellant bill that he  have gross misbehave himself in the business of a broker in not keep book of  the contract make by he pursuant to the act of Geo c it be order that it shall  be recommend to the court of the Lord mayor and alderman of the city of London  to cause the bind give by he for performance of his duty as a broker to be put  tin suit against he for his misbehaviour and further to censure he for the  same as they be enable and ought to do consistent with law and justice and it  be order that a copy of this order shall be send to the Lord mayor of the city  of London