case Le neve versus Le neve December the Cause stand for judgement SC wh t l c  that ed see Rolland v heart lr Ch vane v vane lr Ch n Agra bank Ltd v Barry lr  h l Bradley v riches Ch d distinguish greaves v tofield Ch d see Kettlewell v  Watson Ch d Northern county of England fire insurance company v whip Ch d  manner v mew Ch d re Weir Hollingworth v Willing lt S c Amb Ves the agent of  the defendant have full notice of the first article make on her husband first  marriage this be notice likewise to her and be also a sufficient equity in the  plaintiff to postpone the second article and settlement notwithstanding these  only have be register Lord chancellor the bill be bring by the plaintiff Peter  Le neve and Hugh Pigot and Elizabeth his wife late Elizabeth Le neve as the  only survive child of the defendant Edward Le neve by Henrietta his late wife  decease the end of the bill be in general to have the execution of a trust of  leasehold estate settle upon the late wife of Edward Le neve and the issue of  that marriage by article previous to the marriage date July and that the  conveyance make by the defendant Edward Le neve and the defendant mary his  wife to two trustee may be set aside and deliver up as voluntary be make after  notice of the article of July or of the other conveyance make in pursuance  thereof and to have the leasehold estate exonerate and disencumber the fact be  that in the defendant Edward Le neve intermarry with his first wife Henrietta  Le neve who have a considerable fortune and article be execute previous to the  marriage date July whereby the father of Edward in consideration of henrietta  fortune c covenant with trustee to convey to they several estate and some  leasehold among the rest near SohoSquare in the county of Middlesex atkins to  permit Edward Le neve the young to receive the rend and profit during his own  life and after his death to pay to Henrietta a year in cage she survive Edward  and after the decease of Edward and Henrietta that the say estate shall remain  to their issue in such manner as Edward the young shall by will or otherwise  appoint and for want of such issue to the use of Edward Le neve the father and  his heir the that of June a settlement be make in pursuance of the article the  marriage take effect and Edward and Henrietta have issue the plaintiff Peter  and Elizabeth and Henrietta die in July leave no other child twentyfive year  after the first marriage Edward Le neve enter into a treaty of marriage with  the defendant mary and by article date November previous to the marriage  Edward in consideration of such marriage covenant with the trustee the  defendant Dandridge and Norton to convey these very leasehold estate near  SohoSquare to they their executor c within three monthsafter the marriage in  trust to pay the defendant mary out of the rend of these message in case she  survive he a clear annuity of one hundred and fifty pound for her life for her  jointure c the marriage take effect and three month after on the that of  January a settlement be make pursuant to the article atkins er p the settle  estate consist of house in Middlesex be subject to the register act of and c  the second article and settlement be register but not the first Edward Le neve  mortgage the house likewise the bill be bring in order to set the second  article and settlement out of the way and that they may be postpone to the  first article and settlement upon this equity that the defendant mary Le neve  have notice of they the counsel for the plaintiff admit that the register the  second article and settlement have in point of law affect the leasehold estate  as the statute of the that of queen and give the legal estate where the effect  of the register have place it then the question be whether equity will enable  the child of the first marriage to get the better of the defendant legal right  and this will depend upon the question of notice atkins first whether it  appear sufficient Joseph Norton be attorney for the defendant mary in the  transaction of her marriage second whether Norton himself have sufficient  notice of the first article and settlement three whether that will affect mary  as a purchaser and postpone her article and settlement notwithstanding the  register act the first will depend upon the answer of the defendant mary she  have in general deny any notice of the first article and settlement till six  month after the marriage and say that the defendant Joseph Norton be so far  from be employ as solicitor for her in transact the business of the marriage  article and settlement that he have be for a considerable time before employ  as a attorney for Edward Le neve her husband that be at the time of marriage  concern for her husband she be thereupon induce to place confidence in he and  her husband assure her he will take care there shall be a handsome provision  make for her and recommend Norton as a proper person to prepare the deed  whereby such settlement be to be make upon her to which she consent and that  Norton assure her that he have take care to secure her one hundred and fifty  pound a year by way of jointure and do not then or at any time before her  intermarriage give her any notice of any former settlement it have be insist  by the defendant mary counsel that Joseph Norton be not her attorney or agent  but her husband and that the attorney for one party have notice will not  affect her with notice I be of opinion she have admit enough of her side to  make he attorney or agent for her for if she place confidence in Joseph Norton  no matter on who recommendation if she rely enough on her husband to take his  recommendation it be sufficient or otherwise it will be mischievous and  inconvenient if this court be to take into their consideration from who the  recommendation come for in purchase and more especial in mortgage very  frequent the same counsel and agent be employ on both side and therefore each  side be affect with notice as much as if different counsel and agent have be  employ but see Lowther v Carlton atk Warrick v Warrick atk Worsley v earl of  Scarborough atk it be material how far the case have go in this point two have  be cite Brotherton versus hat vern and atkins Jennings versus Blincorne and  other vern the first be short this a make three several mortgage to b c and d  and in the last mortgage b be a party and agree that after he be pay he will  stand a trustee for d decree that c shall be pay before d for all the security  be transact by the same scrivener notice to he be notice to d see how far this  go the same scrivener be witness and ingross all the security and be in nature  of agent for all the lender and very likely for the borrower himself and  notwithstanding it do not appear mrs hat have personal notice yet notice to  the agent be notice to the party and consequent they that lend last must come  last have notice of what be before lend and if any one after notice lend more  money although they shall obtain the legal estate yet will in equity stand  affect with the notice and be bind thereby the second case be no more than  this Blincorne have notice f a encumbrance purchase in though name of more and  then agree that more shall be the purchaser atkins er p and he accord pay the  purchasemoney without notice of the encumbrance though more do not employ  Blincorne nor know any thing of the purchase till after it be make yet more  approve of it afterward make Blincorne his agent ab beginning and therefore  shall be affect with the notice to Blincorne the last go a great way for more  know nothing of the transaction and yet the court hold that his approve of it  afterward make Blincorne his agent ab beginning this carry it further than the  present but the first be a clear authority these case therefore sufficient  prove it be not at all material to the plaintiff on who advice or  recommendation the defendant mary entrust Norton nor do it make any difference  that it be the recommendation of the husband any more than of any other person  the second consideration will be if it appear clear that Norton be employ by  the defendant mary then whether there be sufficient evidence of notice to he a  objection have be take by the defendant mary counsel that as notice have be  deny by her answer if it be swear to by one witness only that be but oath  against oath it can prevail to establish the fact atkins the general rule to  be sure be so but it admit of this distinction where the denial of a defendant  be clear it have be adhere to but where the answer be not a positive denial of  the same fact but only as to part as in the present case as to the notice to  herself only it make a difference Walton v Hobbs atk and there be many case  where the court upon the testimony of one witness who credit be unimpeached  and what he swear uncontradicted by the answer have decree upon this single  evidence the defendant mary deny notice to herself but whether there be notice  to another person her agent she passes by without give any answer this be a  denial indeed as to herself but be at the same time what be call at law a  negative pregnant that there be notice to her agent as to the evidence of  notice to Norton it be extreme strong for he swear that he have notice of the  first article some time before the second marriage and that he have then a  copy thereof from the defendant Edward Le neve in order to take counsel  opinion thereon how to be secure against the effect of they and to contrive in  what manner they may get the better of these article and therefore as to  Norton there can be a strong notice the three and last general question be  whether the notice to Norton will affect the defendant mary as a purchaser and  postpone her article and settlement notwithstanding the register act this  depend upon two thing first whether any notice whatsoever will be sufficient  to take from the defendant mary Le neve the benefit of the register act second  whether personal notice to the defendant mary be requisite to postpone her or  whether notice to her agent be sufficient to do it likewise as to the first it  be a question of great extent and consequence the preamble to the statute of  and c be in substance whereas by the different and several way of convey land  c such as be ill dispose have it in their power to commit fraud and frequent  do so by mean whereof several person have be undo in their purchase and  mortgage by prior and secret conveyance and fraudulent encumbrance atkins then  come the enact clause that a memorial of all deed and conveyance which after  the that of September shall be make and execute and of all will and devise in  write whereby any honour manor land c in the county of Middlesex may be any  way affect in law or equity may be register in such manner as be after direct  and that every such deed or conveyance that shall at any time after c be make  and execute shall be adjudge fraudulent and void against any subsequent  purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration unless such memorial  thereof be register as by this act be direct before the register of the  memorial of the deed or conveyance under which such subsequent purchaser or  mortgagee shall claim c what appear by the preamble to be the intention of the  act plain to secure subsequent purchaser and mortgagee against prior secret  conveyance and fraudulent encumbrance where a person have no notice of a prior  conveyance there the register his sub atkins er p sequent conveyance shall  prevail against the prior but if he have notice of a prior conveyance then  that be not a secret conveyance by which he can be prejudice the enact clause  say that every such deed shall be void against any subsequent purchaser or  mortgagee unless the memorial thereof the register c that be it give they the  legal estate but it do not say that such subsequent purchaser be not leave  open to any equity which a prior purchaser or encumbrancer may have for he can  be in no danger where he know of another encumbrance because he may then have  stop his hand from proceed this case have be very proper compare to case on  the h for the enrolment of bargain and sale that act be form pretty much in  the same manner with this the word of the enact clause be that from c no manor  land tenement c shall pass alter or change from one to another whereby any  estate of inheritance or freehold shall be make or take effect in any person  or person or any use thereof to be make by reason only of any bargain and sale  thereof except the same bargain and sale be make by write indent seal and  enrol in one of the king court of record at Westminster or else within the  same county c where the same manor c so bargain and sell lie c atkins and the  same enrolment to he have and make within six month next after the date of the  same write indent c nor any use thereof shall pass from one to another what be  the meaning of this before the make of the act any paper write pass the use  from the bargainor to the bargainee whereby great mischief arise for it  entangle purchaser affect and injure d the crown and be contrary to the rule  of law which require notoriety in chase by feoff and livery c but what have be  the construction of this statute ever since why if a subsequent bargainee have  notice of a prior he be equal affect with that notice as if the prior purchase  have be a conveyance by feoff and livery c the operation of both act of  parliament and construction of they be the same and it will be a most  mischievous thing if a person take the advantage of the legal form appoint by  a act of parliament may under that protect himself against a person who have a  prior equity of which he have notice the case put by the attorney general be  very material suppose say he the defendant mary have by letter of attorney  empower Norton to transact the affair with her husband and he by mean of this  agency come to the knowledge of the prior article and settlement will not this  affect the principal or suppose a purchaser of land in a register county order  his attorney to register it and he neglect to do it and then buy the estate  himself and register his own conveyance shall this be allow to prevail it  certain shall not for such a person be out of the consequence which the  register act guard against of imposition from a prior secret conveyance as he  have personal knowledge of the first there have be three case on the register  act first Lord Forbes and Nielson second blade versus blade Eq Cas Abr atkins  three Chivall versus Nicholls December in the exchequer the first arise  original in Ireland where there be a general register act and hear on a appeal  to the house of lord in England the d and d of February Forbes v Deniston Ves  S c bro par can bro p c and ed the earl of Granard father of Lord Forbes be  seize of a large estate of which he be tenant for life with remainder to his  first and every other son in tail and have a power of lease for life at the  best rend the register act in Ireland pass the that of queen and Lord Granard  grant a lease for three life at the rend of thirty pound a year but it be not  register his lordship be great in debt come to a agreement with Lord Forbes  his old son by the agency of Mr steward to take upon he the payment of certain  debt of his father and to secure a jointure to his motherinlaw and a annuity  to his father the estate be convey to trustee Mr justice doyne and Mr justice  nut during the life of the father atkins er p Mr steward have notice of this  lease during the treaty between Lord Granard and Forbes the conveyance to the  trustee be register they bring a ejectment against the lessee of the lifehold  estate and it be hear before Lord Middleton chancellor of Ireland in February  who then make a declaration rather than a decree that the conveyance be void  as against the lessee it come on again before he the I that of February and he  then determine there be full notice of the lease to Lord Forbes and award a  perpetual injunction from time to time the judgement of the house of lord be  that the say decree be reverse and that all proceed at law of the appellant  against the respondent shall during the life of Lord Granard be stay on lessee  pay the rend perform the covenant g but that after the death of Lord Granard  Lord Forbes may be at liberty to try the tenant right to the lease the decree  be reverse not because Lord Middleton have proceed on a wrong principle but  have draw a wrong inference from it for Lord Forbes do not insist mere on the  register but that the lease be make contrary to the power and atkins therefore  the Lord chancellor of Ireland be mistake and wrong in decree the lease to be  good in every respect and the house of lord set the decree right only as to  this particular part that after the death of Lord Granard the estate will  determine and thereforeit be leave open to Lord Forbes to dispute whether it  be a lease pursuant to the power but give no relief as to the register act the  case of blade versus blade come before Lord chancellor king the second of may  Eq ab pl c William blade in devise certain land to his wife for her life and  after her death to his nine child the wife enter but do not register the will  the heir at law mortgage the estate and the mortgagee have it register and  upon a bill bring against he deny notice of the will but it be prove in  evidence that he have notice and the court say that have notice of the first  purchase though it be not register bind he and that his get his own purchase  first register be a fraud the design of those act be only to give party notice  who may otherwise without such registry be in danger of be impose on by a  prior purchase or mortgage which they be in no danger of when they have any  notice thereof in any manner though not by the registry and that they will  never suffer a act of parliament make to prevent fraud to be a protection to  fraud and therefore decree for the plaintiff look upon the transaction between  the heir at law and the mortgagee to be collusive I mention this not only as a  material authority but as determine by Lord chancellor king who we all know be  as Willing to adhere to the commonlaw as any judge that ever sit here the  other case of Chivall versus Nicholls stram S c be in the court of exchequer  the that of December before Lord chief baron Gilbert and be a clear authority  for give relief against the registry act upon a equity of notice but then  there be charge of fraudulent circumstance beside and therefore be not so  similar to the present consider therefore what be the ground of all this and  particular of those case which go on the foundation of notice only for Lord  Forbes be on notice only and notice too to the agent the ground of it plain be  this that the take of a legal estate after notice of a prior right make a  person a mala fide purchaser and not that he be not a purchaser for a valuable  consideration in every other respect this be a species of fraud and dolus evil  itself for he know the first purchaser have the clear right of the estate and  after know atkins that he take away the right of another person by get the  legal estate and this exact agree with the definition of the civil law of  dolus evil dig lib title law trick malum Servius ita definite machinationem  quandan of one another to catch causan cum other to make like other to put in  motion libeo autem posse without simulations id holy ut quis circumvenia posse  without trick evil other holy other to make like as fanciunt who per of this  sort dissimulation dissembling to serve zealously to look at well svan well  another and so ipse such to bound trick malum be all men shrewdness deceit  machine ad to come around to trip decipiend one summon Libeonis ending true be  now if a person do not stop his hand but get the legal estate when he know  atkins er p the right in equity be in another machinator ad to come around and  it be a maxim too in our law that fraud dolus no one to be a patron to  withhold   Rep b fraud or mala fides therefore be the true ground on which the  court be govern in the case of notice and it be a consequence of the decision  of the former question that notice to the agent be sufficient for if the  ground be the fraud or mala fides of the party then it be all one whether by  the party himself or his agent still it be machine ad to come around and the  put a copy of the first article and settlement into Norton hand to take the  opinion of counsel in what manner they can be set aside be a contrivance to  circumvent it have be say if this woman have be impose on b her husband she  instead of cheat have be cheat but then who ought to suffer the person entrust  a agent or a stranger who do not employ he he certain who trust most ought to  suffer most mrs hat the three mortgagee in the case in vern mention before be  impose on and so be more in the other case report there clear impose on and  yet if this be to be any excuse it will make all the case of notice very  precarious for it seldom happen but the agent have impose on his principal and  notwithstanding that the person trust ought to suffer for his illplaced  confidence therefore in both respect as agent and trustee notice to Joseph  Norton be notice to the defendant mary likewise Norris v Le neve atk Maddox v  Maddox Ves Ashley v bail j Ves and also as to the registry act here be a  sufficient equity in the plaintiff to postpone the second article and  settlement notwithstanding these only have be register your v Dodd atk Sheldon  v Cox Amb Cowp and his lordship decree accord