brown case earl of peterborough and other appellant sir John germane ux  respondent that February Mews dig way explain in moss v AngloEgyptian  navigation   l r Ch see Tredegar way windus l r Eq it be against the know and  establish rule of all court of equity that after the issue join publication  pass and the cause hear same matter or the same title shall be draw into  question again by another original bill for if this be once admit it will  introduce perjury and make suit endless order of the court of chancery affirm  notwithstanding the determination of the former suit between the present  appellant the earl and the respondent sir John see ante title evidence vol p  the earl in after the death of lady mary sir John first wife exhibit another  bill in chancery against he to be relish touch the Northamptonshire estate  which the plaintiff claim under the settlement of Charles and also as heir at  law of the say lady mary and obtain a injunction against the defendant for  stay waste to which bill the defendant plead his title under several  conveyance from his wife he also plead the dismission of the plaintiff former  bill and the affirmance of that dismission upon the house of peer and upon  argue this plea on the that of July it be allow and the injunction dissolve it  be state as one of the fact in the former case that certain lease which have  be grant by the late countess Elizabeth to one Newport be order to be seal up  and deposit with the usher of the court of chancery there to remain but this  be omit and the earl have by some mean obtain the custody of these lease to  the number of fifteen sir John make a application the court in the old cause  that the earl may deliver they up and order of the saint April the earl be  accord order to bring back the say fifteen lease so as the same may be bring  before sir William Lacon child one of the master of the say court to be by he  deliver over to the usher of the court who be to keep they till further order  the earl be still dissatisfy in Hilary term file another bill in the court of  chancery against the present respondent to call again in question the title of  the Northamptonshire estate brown and to be relieve touch these fifteen lease  and that he may be at liberty to make use of they upon any trial at law to  this bill the defendant plead the several fine feoff recovery and settlement  of earl Henry the article between he and countess Elizabeth and the decree in  confirmation thereof the dismission of the former bill and appeal and a  settlement make of the premise by the defendant sir John upon his marriage  with brown er p the defendant lady Elizabeth his wife and upon argue this plea  before the Lord chancellor Cowper on the that of November it be allow from  this order and also from the former order of the saint of April the plaintiff  appeal and on their behalf it be insist t Parker S Harcourt that none of the  lease have be suffer to be read in the former cause it have not yet come  before the court judicial to determine whether those lease or any of they be  make in breach of the article or decree which only restrain the countess from  make lease to lessen the rend of the estate but do not hinder her from make  lease to preserve the estate in the name and family that the end of the earl  bill which be former dismiss be to have the deed of the that Charles set aside  as a voluntary settlement and the deed of the that Charles I establish which  be a matter quite different from the relief pray by the present bill and  therefore ought not to be set up as a bar to such relief more especial as in  the former suit the earl have not proper party to be relieve touch the lease  and that the order of the saint of April be not regular in as much as the  clause wherein that order be make have be long before abate by the death of  party and be not then revive on the other side it be contend t powys I  Montague that these lease have by a decree make so long since as the that of  October be set aside and by virtue of a subsequent order be bring into court  to remain there till further order the court on be inform that the earl have  get they into his possession can not do less than order they to be bring back  again although there be not suit then depend between the party interest  therein and a practice of this kind may have be just censure and punish as a  contempt of the court be authority that the article which restrain the  countess Elizabeth from make lease be plain and express as to all lease  whatsoever after the pound be raise during the life of earl Henry without his  consent except for such term only as shall end at her death and it be thereby  also provide that if the countess shall outlive earl Henry the article be to  be void and in that case her power of lease will have arise again so that it  be manifest the intention of these article that the estate be to be keep free  from lease for the particular benefit of earl Henry in order that he may have  the more absolute power and command over it without any such regard have to  the remainderman as the appellant apprehend that the brown decree of the that  of October not only confirm the article but express set aside all lease make  contrary thereto and the court most clear take the lease in question to be so  make when they be order to be bring into court at which time it be not so much  as pretend that they be not make in breach of the article that the earl seek  to have the benefit of these lease and to be admit to use they not only by his  bill of Hilary in which cause they be full put in issue but he also make it  part of his complaint his former appeal to the house and yet both his say bill  and petition of appeal be dismiss that no objection be make in that cause for  want of proper party but both in the court of chancery and in the house of  peer it be defend and determine upon the mere right nor in truth be there any  party want to determine the question whether the appellant shall be permit to  make use of these lease as against the then respondent or not that there be  very good reason for allow the respondent plea to the three bill bring by the  appellant upon the same title and for the same estate it be against the know  and establish rule of all court of equity that after issue join publication  pass and the cease hear the same matter or the same title shall be draw into  question again by another original bill for if this be once admit it will  introduce perjury and make suit endless and much less ought such a attempt to  be suffer after a appeal to the house of peer and judgement give by the  supreme and last resort and in a case where the respondent come in as  purchaser under fine recovery marriagesettlement and even a act of parliament  at so great a distance of time after the have be set aside for if after such  transaction purchaser can not be safe in their title nothing can ever be  reduce to a certainty or be at peace after hear counsel for two day on this  appeal the house order that on the next day one counsel on either side shall  be hear to this point only videlicet whether the matter of the respondent plea  allow by the court of chancery brown er p and against which order of allowance  the present appeal be bring be as touch the fifteen lease in question in whole  or in part the same matter which be in judgement before the house upon the  earl of peterborough former appeal hear and judge in and counsel have be hear  thereon accord and the house be of opinion it be the same matter it be  therefore order and adjudge that the order complain of in the appeal as well  that for bring back the lease into court as that for the allowance of the  respondent plea shall be affirm jour vol p