case brace versus duchess of marlborough S c vern see Whitworth v Gaugain Ph  Thorpe v Holdsworth l r Eq and case cite there Jennings v jordan App c as  atherley v Barnett lt Bailey v barn Ch master of the roll mos Eq can ab pl c  three mortgagee buy in the first though pen a bill bring by the second  mortgagee to redeem the first yet the three mortgagee shall tack the first  mortgage to his three mortgage if a creditor by judgement statute or  recognizance buy in the first mortgage he shall not tack it to his judgement c  because he do not lend his money on the credit of the land have no present  right therein nor can be call a purchaser if a puisne mortgagee buy in a  judgement or statute be the first encumbrance he shall hold till by law he can  be evict the first mortgagee lend a further sum to the mortgagor upon a  statute of judgement he shall retain against mesne mortgagee till the statute  or judgement be pay if a puisne mortgagee buy in a prior judgement extend on a  elegit at a under value he shall hold the extent till evict at law but in all  these case there must not be notice of the mesne encumbrance when the money be  lend if a puisne encumbrancer buy in a prior mortgage and the legal title be  in a trustee or in any three person then the buy in such first mortgage will  not avail but in all such case where the legal estate be stand out the  encumbrance must be pay accord to their priority after a decree which refer it  to a master to state the several encumbrance and their priority affect the  estate of sir William gostwick this case arise Reg lib peer William er p a fol  a puisne judgement creditor buy in the first mortgage without notice of the  second mortgage when he lend his money on the judgement and the question be  whether this puisne judgement creditor shall tack and unite his judgement to  the first mortgage so as to gain a preference on his judgement before the  mesne mortgage and the master of the roll on consider the case and precedent  hold saint that if a three mortgagee buy in the first mortgage though it be  pendent light pen a bill bring by the second mortgagee to redeem the first yet  the three mortgagee have obtain the first mortgage and get the law on his side  and equal equity he shall thereby squeeze out the second mortgage and this the  Lord chief justice hale call a plank gain by the three mortgagee or picture in  shipwreck which construction be in favour of a purchaser every mortgagee be  such pro tanto dly if a judgement creditor or creditor by statute or  recognizance buy in the first mortgage he shall not tack or unite this to his  judgement c and thereby gain a preference for one can call a judgement c  creditor a purchaser nor have such creditor any right to the land he have  neither law in re peer William nor ad remember and therefore though he release  all his right to the land he may extend it afterward all that he have by the  judgement be a lie upon the land but non constant whether he ever will make  use thereof for he may recover the debt out of the good of the cognizor by  become facias or may take the body and then during the defendant life he can  have no other execution beside the judgement creditor do not lend his money  upon the immediate view or contemplation of the cognizors real estate for the  land afterward purchase may be extend on the judgement nor be he deceive or  defraud though the cognizor of the judgement have before make twenty mortgage  of all his real estate whereas a mortgagee be defraud or deceive if the  mortgagor before that time mortgage his land to another and it be such a fraud  as the parliament take notice of see W m c and punish by foreclose such  mortgagor who mortgage his land a second time without give notice of the first  mortgage and in that respect this case differ from a puisne mortgagee buy in  the first mortgage dly though the rule of equity have be so settle it be not  however without great appearance of hardship for still it seem reasonable that  each mortgagee shall be pay accord to his priority and hard to leave a second  mortgagee without remedy who may know when he have leave his money that the  land be of sufficient value to pay the first mortgage and also his own to be  defeat of a just debt by a matter inter elsewhere acta a contrivance betwixt  the first mortgagee and the three be great severity but this have be settle  upon solemn debate in a case in vent marsh versus lee wherein that great man  sir Matthew hale then chief baron be call by the Lord chancellor to his  assistance though this peer William be settle there can be no reason to carry  it far to a case not within the same reason to a case where the lender of the  money do not advance it upon the immediate credit of the land no precedent go  so far be all of they where a puisne mortgagee buy in a first mortgage not  where a puisne creditor by judgement statute or recognizance do so as appear  from the case cite of marsh versus lee report also in Chan case so in Chan  case Higgon all versus Syddal Callamy all where Syddal seize in fee of land  grant a rentcharge of pound per annum for pound to the plaintiff and afterward  mortgage the premise for pound to Callamy who bring in a judgement precedent  to the grant of the rentcharge there the mortgagee of the land have no notice  of the rentcharge when he lend his money upon the mortgage the grantee of the  rentcharge be decree to have no remedy in equity against the judgement unless  he will pay both the mortgage and the judgement though it be to be observe in  that case the judgement creditor who be the first encumbrancer can at law  extend but a moiety and out of the remain moiety the grantee of the rentcharge  may distrain for the whole rend but it seem that if the first encumbrance have  be a statute staple and the three mortgagee have buy it in he shall have have  the whole land until at law the cognizor of the statute by a to know facias ad  to sum up have get the statute vacate and that can only be on payment of the  penalty for equity will not in such case have give any assistance against a  three mortgagee without notice until he be pay his mortgage as well as statute  so note a diversity where a three mortgagee buy in a statute which be the  first encumbrance and where a statute creditor c be the peer William three  encumbrancer buy in the first mortgage in the latter case the statute or  judgement creditor because he do not lend his money on the credit of the land  shall not unite the first mortgage to his statute or judgement but in the peer  William er p former as the land be in the view and contemplation of the lender  he shall be allow to unite the statute to his three mortgage so in vern Edmund  versus Povey there be a first second and three mortgage without notice and the  three mortgagee buy in a judgement prior indeed to all but it be satisfy and  the first mortgagee bring his bill to be relieve against this judgement Lord  keeper north will not allow it to be so much as debate but take it to be  settle in the above cite case of marsh versus lee and not then to be dispute  though his lordship admit that it be at first a very disputable case and very  strong argument and reason have be urge on the other side thly if a first  mortgagee lend a further sum to the mortgagor upon a statute or judgement he  shall retain against a mesne mortgagee till both the mortgage and statute or  judgement be pay because it be to be presume that he lend his money upon the  statute or judgement as know he have hold of the land by the mortgage and in  confidence venture a far sum on a security which though it pass no present  interest in the land yet must be admit to be a lie thereon thly if a puisne  mortgagee without notice buy in a prior judgement or statute and that  judgement c be extend upon a elegit at a value much under the real the mesne  mortgagee shall not make the puisne mortgagee who have get in this judgement  account otherwise or for more than the extend value nor peer William will this  court give any relief against the judgement or statute but leave the mesne  mortgagee to get rid of they as well as he can at law but thly his honour say  in all these case it must be intend that the puisne mortgagee when he lend his  money have no notice of the second mortgage statute or judgement for that be  the sole equity and therefore in the principal case where the creditor by  recognizance who buy in the first mortgage do not in his answer deny notice  though such notice be not charge in the bill which be here bring by some  puisne encumbrancer for a sale and upon bill and answer first a decree to  state the several encumbrance then a report and thereupon a far decree be  obtain for the master to state the value of the land mortgage to each of the  mortgagee yet after all these proceed for a puisne judgement c creditor to  insist upon his have have no notice and offer to be examine upon interrogatory  be not sufficient but this deny of notice ought to appear on the plead  whereupon the party may go to issue and have a opportunity of prove notice and  therefore though it be true that a puisne judgement creditor buy in a first  mortgage shall in such case unite it to the judgement which be clear otherwise  yet here the puisne judgement creditor come too late it be a case not to be  favour and in a cause very much entangle which if such indulgence be to be  give to the puisne judgement creditor will never have a end thly in this case  it appear that a puisne encumbrancer buy in a prior mortgage in order to unite  the same to the puisne encumbrance but it be prove peer William that there be  a mortgage prior to that the court clear hold that the puisne encumbrancer  where he have not get the legal estate or where the legal estate be vest in a  trustee can there make no advantage of his mortgage but in all case where the  legal estate be stand of it the several encumbrance must be pay accord to  their priority in point of time who prior be in tempore drinking be in jure  Hawkins v tailor vern turner v Richmond vern belchier v Renforth bro p g bro p  c and ed S g Eden Robinson v Davison bro c c in Mackreth v simmons Ves Lord  Eldon be make to say be there any case where a three mortgagee have exclude  the second if the first mortgagee when he convey to the three know of the  second when the case of maundrell v maundrell Ves be before I I look for but  can not find such a case now belchier v Renforth and Robinson v Davison ub sup  be both such case it seem therefore that the chancellor question must have be  intend to apply only to case where the first mortgage be satisfy and so the  first mortgagee have become a trustee for the person entitle to the  inheritance before the conveyance to the three mortgagee see ex part Knott Ves  but after a decree and direction to settle priorities a party in the cause  shall not have the advantage of tack his puisne encumbrance to a prior one  take in since the decree Wortley v Birkhead ves but a commission of bankrupt  have not the same effect as a decree ex part Knott Ves peer William er p so  Morret v pask atk vide yet wright v peel pre Charles and pale yellow Rep S c  anon ves the name of this case be Jackson v Langford belt supplement p  shepherd v Titley atk anon ves baker v Harris Ves by if the land mortgage be  copyhold heir of cannon v pack vin ab copyhold oh e pl nor can a first  mortgagee tack a judgement subsequent to the second mortgage which he have  purchase without the consent of the mortgagor Breerton v Jones Eq can Abr but  in Lowthian v Hasell bro c c it be determine that a mortgagee who have advance  a further sum of money to the mortgagor on bind shall not tack his bind debt  to his mortgage as against other specialty creditor see Coleman v winch ante  vol p vide clarke v Abbott Barnard Morret v pask atk matthews v Cartwright atk  earl of pomfret v Lord Windsor ves Wortley v Birkhead ves and atk S c belchier  v Renforth bro p c and Edward bro p c S c Eden Robinson v Davison bro c c  Willoughby v Willoughby t r maundrell v maundrell Ves frere v more price Parry  v wright S S note also that security can be tack unless both be hold in the  same right Barnett v Weston Ves coppin v Anonymous peer William er report date  case coppin versus Lord chancellor king baron and feme bring a bill to redeem  a mortgage defendant plead to the bill and the plea overrule and cost give to  the plaintiff which by the course of the court be pound baron die the feme by  survivorship shall have the cost the plaintiff and his wife bring their bill  to redeem a mortgage of the wife estate the defendant put in a plea to the  bill which be overrule for which pound cost be of course give to the plaintiff  the defendant bring a cross bill to foreclose the wife who be the survive  plaintiff in the original cause move the court that proceed shall stay in the  cross cause until the plaintiff who be defendant in the original cause have  pay the pound cost due upon overrule the plea object these cost must be intend  to have be lie out by the husband in the original cause and consequent upon  his death the same be lose on the other side it be insist that this original  suit be in right of the wife who be entitle to the equity of redemption the  husband join therein only for conformity that the suit be not abate by the  death of the husband the order for cost be in nature of a joint judgement  which must peer William survive to the wife and the sum for cost be certain by  the course of the court though not express in the order Lord chancellor for  some time doubt and ask the register but afterward take it to be as a joint  judgement for a sum certain determine that it do survive to the wife vide bind  v simmons atk anon atk and they who oppose the motion say that a bind give to  the husband and wife during the coverture on the husband die first do not  survive to the wife Lord chancellor deny this recite for clear it do survive  to the wife Allen as all other joint choose in action do wildman v wildman Ves  Philliskirk v Pluckwell m S Nash v Nash mad though it be true in this case the  husband may disagree to the wife right to it and bring the action on the bind  in his own name only but till such disagreement the right to the bind be in  both the husband and the wife and shall survive whereupon it be order that the  proceed shall stay in the cross cause until the defendant in the original  cause pay the pound cost for overrule his plea peer William er p