brown case mary WICHALSE appellant John short respondent that July Mews dig  ringtail sub roam Whishall v short Eq can ab Whichals v short vin Abr after a  decree of foreclosure make absolute and a acquiescence of eleven year in the  mortgagee possession under it no parole evidence of his promise to account and  reconvey on payment of his money can be admit viner vol p can vol p can Eq can  ab can John Wichalse the appellant late husband have mortgage his estate at  Lynton in the county of Devon to several person and the mortgagee press for  their money the respondent be prevail on to advance the sum of pound for  discharge those encumbrance and accord the former mortgage be assign to he by  deed date the that of September he afterward advance to Wichalse a further sum  of pound on the that of December so that the estate then stand mortgage to he  for pound and interest neither principal nor interest be pay at the time limit  by the mortgage or for above two year afterward the respondent on the d of  march exhibit his bill in chancery against Wichalse in order to foreclose the  equity of redemption to which bill the defender put in a answer admit the  pound and interest to remain due and offer to pay the same at such time as the  court shall appoint but desire a reasonable time to sell his estate for that  purpose on the that of July this cause be hear upon bill and answer when it be  refer to a master to compute the principal money and interest remain due on  the mortgage and to tax the plaintiff his cost and on payment thereof by the  defendant at or before ladyday then next he be to have a reconveyance from the  plaintiff but in default of such payment the defendant be to stand foreclose  and it be decree by consent that if in the mean time the defendant can procure  a purchaser for the estate the plaintiff shall join in a sale thereof the  master by his report of the that of July certify that there be due to the  plaintiff for principal interest and cost pound S d which he appoint the  defendant to pay on the that of August follow but the time for payment be  enlarge to the that of July and the money not be then pay nor any purchaser of  the estate procure the decree of foreclosure be on that day make absolute and  be afterward duly sign and enrol the plaintiff be put into possession of the  mortgage estate the mortgagor live above eight year afterward but never  attempt to open the foreclosure or to disturb the appellant brown in his  possession yet he nevertheless take upon he to devise this estate to his wife  the appellant in fee who in Hilary term about three year after her husband  death think proper to exhibit her bill in the court of chancery against the  respondent pray a account of the rend and profit of the premise and to be let  into a redemption thereof upon a suggestion that the former decree and proceed  have be obtain by collusion to so much of this bill as seek to lie open the  foreclosure the defendant plead the enrol decree and his possession under the  same in bar and by his answer deny any collusion in obtain that decree and  upon argue this plea before the Lord chancellor Cowper it be allow but the  plaintiff have reply and witness be examine the cause be hear before the Lord  chancellor Harcourt on the that of April when his lordship declare that the  defendant have full prove his plea and therefore dismiss the bill with cost  from this decree of dismission the plaintiff appeal insist S Dodd n Lechmere  that the estate be not sell pursuant to the first decree nor the time for a  sale or redemption enlarge but that one northmore who be her husband solicitor  in that cause colluded with the respondent in all the proceed therein that the  respondent after obtain that decree often promise both the appellant and her  husband to be Accountable for the rend and to reconvey on payment of his money  and brown er p that the value of the estate be considerable more than what be  due to the respondent at the time of the foreclosure but to this it be answer  I Pratt t Vernon that by the decree the appellant husband have near nine month  give he to sell or redeem and no court be oblige to enlarge the time without a  proper application for that purpose but the pretence of the time not be  enlarge be total groundless for in fact the time for a sale or redemption have  be twice enlarge and no less than two year be allow for that purpose that  equal false and groundless be the other pretence of Northmores colluding with  the respondent for there be neither any proof in the cause to support it nor  do the appellant husband ever make any complaint of that kind although he live  eight year after the decree that as to the respondent promise of account and  reconveying it be not only very improbable that after he have be at the  expense of obtain a decree he shall agree to waive or take nothing by it but  he have express deny by his answer his have ever make any such promise and  agreement either to the appellant or her husband and what the appellant  witness have attempt to prove be nothing more than what have occasional pass  brown in conversation with three person or stranger and not with the appellant  or her husband nor at any meeting treaty or agreement concern the redemption  or reconveyance of the premise that no such parole evidence ought to be admit  to lie open a decree of foreclosure after so great a distance of time for  shall a precedent of that kind be once introduce and a decree sign and enrol  be discharge or do away by parole evidence of casual conversation without any  note or memorandum in write it will not only make all proceed in court of  equity to foreclose vain and fruitless but will render the property acquire  under such decree extreme precarious and will be attend with very mischievous  consequence to mortgagee who as in the present case rely on the decree and  apprehend themselves absolute owner of the estate have lie out large sum of  money in repair and improvement but have not for many year together keep any  account of rend and profit and as to the pretend overvalue of the estate there  be no sufficient proof make of it nor do witness general differ more in any  thing than in their imaginary calculation or estimate of the value of estate  but if the fact have real be so yet a over value be not apprehend to be any  bar to a foreclosure nor be a estate always to lie open if the party think fit  to neglect his redemption in a reasonable time and therefore and as the  appellant husband have during all his lifetime acquiesce under the decree the  respondent hope his title will not now be impeach or he make Accountable to  the appellant who only claim be that of his be the voluntary devisee of a  equity of redemption which have be duly and regular foreclose near year ago  accord after hear counsel on this appeal it be order and adjudge that the same  shall be dismiss and the decree and other proceed therein complain of affirm  jour vol p