case tempt Talbot case Lowther versus Carleton April Eq Cas Abr S c atk S c a  man by marriage article agree to settle a church lease upon himself and wife  and the issue of the marriage be afterward sell it to a stranger who have no  notice of the marriage article the executor of this vendee fall to b who have  full notice of the marriage article and take a collateral security of the  executor for the better assure his title b s purchase shall stand good against  the plaintiff who claim under the article a church lease of twentyone year  obtain by the plaintiff grandmother be upon the marriage of his father and  mother surrender to the dean and chapter of Carlisle and a new one for the  same term grant to the plaintiff father and mother which by article be agree  to be settle on they for their life and the life of the survivor and then upon  the issue of the marriage the father and mother afterward surrender this new  lease and a new one be grant to a stranger to who the father have mortgage the  second the last lease be afterward purchase by the late marquis of wharton who  do not appear to have any notice of the marriage article the defendant  purchase the marquis of wharton title of his executor who upon the purchase  give he a collateral security for the better assure his title but previous to  this purchase the defendant have notice of the marriage article which be show  to he by his own father and now the plaintiff bring his bill to be let into  possession of this leasehold estate and pray that the defendant may be  consider as a trustee for he the defendant plead his purchase and confess the  notice but principal insist upon the marquis of wharton purchase without  notice who title be now in he Lord chancellor have this bill be bring against  Lord wharton himself and he have plead that he be a purchaser without notice  of the article the plea will have be good he have the law on his side and have  both law and equity the court will not take it from he and as the court will  not have give any relief against he so neither will it against his executor  for if the case tempt Talbot plaintiff title have not be good against the Lord  wharton himself it will not be so against his executor and therefore his death  be not material have the defendant pay nothing at all for his purchase yet the  plaintiff can not prevail against he because though he be but a volunteer yet  be claim under a purchaser without notice who have bar the plaintiff S right  and all the purchaser right be now devolve upon he indeed it have be object  that the defendant be a purchaser without notice under the Lord wharton but  because be be so shall he be in worse condition than a volunteer or executor  claim under Lord wharton will have be a volunteer claim under a purchaser for  a good and valuable consideration without notice will have a clear and  absolute right and shall not the defendant have it also because he be a  purchaser with notice of the plaintiff title as the Lord wharton have a right  of enjoy it so he have of alien it and when he have so do his alienee have the  same right that he himself have nor can the defendant take a collateral  security make his case the worse for though he may be relieve against the Lord  wharton executor upon that security yet what relief can they have where the  testator be a fair and honest purchaser the executor upon some doubt arise in  the purchaser as to the title give he a collateral security but why shall they  be liable to make satisfaction out of this security when if they have keep the  term in their own hand it will never have be take from they by the plaintiff  the security be give only to satisfy the purchaser doubt shall never return to  their disadvantage if the Lord wharton can be affect with notice then all will  be overturn but if he can the defendant plea will be good I remember a case  where a purchaser with notice alien to one case tempt Talbot er p who have no  notice and there although the court will not affect the purchaser without  notice yet it be a fraud the vendor who be the purchaser with case tempt  Talbot notice be decree to make satisfaction to the plaintiff vide Harrison v  forth Prec in Chan Brandlyn v Ord atk and so allow the plea