case the earl of huntington versus Greenville assignee of a statute purchase  the estate have notice of a second statute how far he shall make use of the  first statute to protect his purchase the case be thus one Mr Lewis be seize  of the land in question on which there be two several statute among other  encumbrance the prior of the say statute which be a statute for pound be buy  in by the earl of Huntington for pound it have be former extend and then but  pound remain due upon it the next statute be for a great sum of money and  belong to the defendant and it be allege that the plaintiff have notice of the  defendant statute and be once in treaty about buy it in two year after the  plaintiff have buy in the first statute he purchase the land in question and  afterward the defendant have notice of the statute that be assign to the Lord  Huntington endeavour as be allege to get some of the next of kin to the  conusee of the first statute to take out letter of administration de good non  of the say conusee of that statute to the intent that the defendant may bring  a to know fac ad to sum up against they to come to a account with he upon the  first statute and pay they off what shall be due if any thing and to have the  say first statute vacate that so he may be let in upon his security but they  decline to accept of such administration he himself take out letter of  administration de good non of the say conusee and procure the officer in the  petty Vernon chancery case bag to vacate the say statute and now the Lord  Huntington exhibit his bill to be relieve against the undue vacate of this  statute it be observe that where a statute be extend it can be try in a  ejectment whether it be satisfy or not but the only remedy be by a to know fac  ad to sum up bring bill in chancery see note to Underhill v Devereux wms S  sander u that ed see also price v Varney b c if the conusor will sue the  conusee in a court of equity he shall bring he to account for what he have  receive of the profit above the extend value but if a subsequent mortgagee buy  in a precede statute the prior mortgagee shall not bring he to account for  what he have receive above the extend value unless he the subsequent mortgagee  have receive enough to satisfy his own mortgage as well as the statute he have  so buy in marsh v lee vent brace v Marlborough p wms but where land be extend  upon a elegit the debt and yearly value appear on record and it may be well  know when the debt be pay and may I come in evidence upon a trial in a  ejectment second it be observe by Mr sergeant Maynard that the plaintiff  counsel have much mistake the law in what they affirm for the law be clear and  certain Vernon chancery case er p that where a statute be once extend there  though the conusee afterward assign the same yet nevertheless the conusee  himself his executor or administrator may release or discharge such statute  and it shall be good and bind in law three he say there be a great difference  where a man be first a real purchaser without notice and then find encumbrance  to arise upon his estate there when he be fast and once in it be lawful for he  to get in what ancient security he can to corroborate and protect his purchase  but this be quite another case for here the plaintiff have buy in this statute  at least two year before his Vernon chancery case purchase and so it can not  be say to be do for the protection of his purchase and insist that in this  case the Lord Huntington ought not to be look upon as a purchaser have before  his purchase notice of the defendant statute and that a man have a real debt  may well secure himself by get the statute thus vacate and that be once do  this court ought not to take from he the advantage he have in law but it be  then insist by the Lord Huntington counsel that the defendant ought not to  profit by the art and skill he have use in get this statute vacate the same be  undue do and not accord to the course of law which shall have be do regular by  a to know fac ad to sum up and the defendant have intrude himself into a  administration to which he have no colour of right on purpose to defraud the  plaintiff it ought not to avail he and if he have be a fair and rightful  administrator yet his intestate under who he come in have assign the first  statute for a valuable consideration though the administrator may have a power  of release or discharge it in law yet he be but as a trustee for the assignee  and must be answerable to he for the breach of trust and the plaintiff counsel  insist that they ought to have a perpetual injunction to quiet they in the  possession but the defendant counsel insist that this court ought not to  interpose and abridge he of the advantage he have at law he be a real and true  creditor Lord chancellor declare that each of their demand be over rigid and  first he declare that the defendant shall not profit by this vacate of the  statute but that the plaintiff shall be restore and put in the same plight as  if this statute be still in force but then the plaintiff must go to a account  upon this statute and if it be already satisfy or the defendant will pay what  shall remain due thereupon then the defendant must be let in Vernon chancery  case Mr bow of counsel for the plaintiff urge that this statute shall lie as a  perpetual cover and fence to this estate and that all the profit of the estate  receive since the purchase shall be take to be receive as a purchaser only and  not be apply towards satisfaction of this statute and the rather for that  although the statute be once extend yet the plaintiff have not possession by  virtue of this statute but by reason of his purchase but that be utter deny by  the Lord chancellor for that no purchaser shall be further or long protect by  a encumbrance buy in than till such time only as he have receive so much of  the profit as will satisfy that security and that then the same shall be avoid  by a to know fac ad to sum up or by a account to be take in this court and his  lordship be of opinion that although the statute in this case be buy in before  the purchase yet that make no difference in the case but be as good as if it  have be buy in afterward to protect the purchase and therefore the Lord  Huntington shall be look upon as a purchaser have such security to protect his  purchase and the favour that this court allow to such a purchaser be that he  shall account only accord to the extend value and not accord to the real value  of the estate but by bill in equity the conusor shall compel the conusee to  account accord to the real value by he receive marsh v lee vent Audley v hard  Com dig vol title stat staple g and for further learning and the case on this  subject vide powell law of mort l ed vol et seq the counsel for the plaintiff  seem dissatisfy with this direction the Lord chancellor tell they if all have  be say as may have be say in this case it will not have fare so well with they  for it will be a precedent of very mischievous consequence that a man have buy  in a prior encumbrance and have notice of a subsequent statute shall then  purchase the land with this notice and yet have any protection or favour show  he in it and put they in mind of sir John Faggs case Eq can ab pl which the  defendant counsel can not remember to urge where he be a purchaser come into a  man study and there lie hand on a Vernon chancery case statute that will have  fall on his estate and put it up in his pocket and in that case he have  thereby obtain a advantage in law though so unfair and by so ill a practice  the court will not take that advantage from he Vernon chancery case er p