case Sheldon against cox drummond and other notice to agent affect the  principal see Le neve v neve Ambl lib Reg b foe S c Eden in chancery that June  and d July by a Act of parliament dr Markham and Mr salt be empower to  purchase estate in and near dean yard Westminster to enable they to build a  square c for the better accommodation of the school c the defendant Cox who be  a barrister at law and who appear to have take the management of the affair  upon himself purchase a parcel of ground with old house upon it which be hold  if the dean and chapter of Westminster and have get a renewal accord to the  power in the Act for year upon the that day of may borrow pound of the  plaintiff colonel Sheldon and give he a declaration of trust of the premise as  a security and also deliver he the renew lease but this security ambler be not  register the declaration recite the Act of parliament that Markham and salt  have assign all their power under the Act to Cox it also recite the purchase  of the ground and the renewal of the lease by Cox and also ambler er p that it  be the intent of all party that after such estate shall be buy in Cox shall  with all convenient speed dispose of the ground upon which such new square and  street be intend to be build at proper groundrents and when the same be  complete shall sell such groundrents and apply the money arise thereby in  discharge of all money laid out in the purchase of the say estate and other  expense attend the scheme propose by the Act of parliament and to account with  Markham and salt for the residue thereof f Cox have build nine house four of  which be erect upon the ground in security to plaintiff grant a lease of all  the nine to defendant hoar reserve a groundrent which be say to be do for the  purpose of establish a rend and hoar declare himself in write to be only a  trustee in such lease for Cox on that march a assignment be make by hoar to  Markham of the four house for secure pound on d July a assignment be make of  all the nine house to defendant Drummond by hoar for secure pound and by a  endorsement they be afterward make a security to Drummond for pound more  neither Drummond nor Markham have actual personal notice of the mortgage to  the plaintiff nor of each other mortgage but they admit in their answer that  they employ Cox as their counsel and agent in these transaction and nobody  else Drummond register his mortgage and so do Markham bill by plaintiff for a  sale of the premise and to be pay his mortgage money in the first place  several question be make Lord Northington chancellor be it whether plaintiff  security be not confine to the mere groundrents or whether it extend to the  building ambler d whether the defendant Drummond and Markham be to be affect  with notice to Cox their agent of the plaintiff security d whether  notwithstanding such notice they be not entitle to priority by reason of their  security be register before the plaintiff be to the saint question it be say  to be the intention of the plaintiff and Cox to make only the groundrents a  security to plaintiff in order to leave room for execute the general scheme  which can not be do if his security be to extend to the building and it be  argue from the recital of the deed declare the trust but Lord chancellor  Northington be clear of opinion that the plaintiff be to have a security to  the extent of Cox interest and say that if a man have take a building lease of  Cox with notice of plaintiff mortgage it will have be liable to plaintiff  demand and that he shall have so decree though it will be a hard case and  painful to he to make such a decree to d he say it be a fix and settle point  that notice to the agent be notice to the principal Cox be owner of the estate  make no difference he act in different capacity and it be the same as if they  have be in different person there be no difference between personal and  constructive notice in its consequence except as to gild if there be it will  be very inconvenient and notice will be avoid in every case by employ a agent  to d the stat of Q whether be intend only to protect purchaser against secret  conveyance but do not prevent their be affect with notice in the same manner  as if that statute have not be make Le neve v neve Ambl on the d question Mr  York for plaintiff cite Brotherton v not vern Jennings v more vern on the d  question he cite Lord Forbes v Nelson in dom proc d February on appeal from  Ireland blade v blade Eq can Abr ambler Chivall v Nicholls in exchequer that  December stram Le neve v Le neve in chancery that December Ambl note the d  question be not speak to by the counsel for the defendant and only by Mr York  for the plaintiff Q whether well consider Q the case of blade v blade Chivall  v Nicholls Le neve v Le neve seem to have be determine on circumstance of  fraud ambler er p