c ayloffe v duke lord commissioner original equity remain after a verdict mrs  ayloffe tear a bind of pound a verdict pass against her for pound in a action  of the case she pray relief here for that the bind be but a collateral  security and that if the bind be in be the obligee in equity shall be bar of  his recovery thereon it will have be more satisfactory if the report have  state the ground upon which the plaintiff at law will have be bar from recover  in equity it can not be mere because the bind be a collateral security unless  payment of the debt aliunde be capable of be prove and in that case may not  the special matter have be show at law accord to Seagrave v Seagrave Ves the  real tenor of the condition of a lose bind be more fit for investigation at  law than in a court of equity and it be lie down in Bateman v Willoe Sch and  Lef that where a matter have be investigate in a court of justice accord to  the ordinary rule a court of equity can take on itself to enter on it again it  be not sufficient to show that injusticehas be do but that it have be do under  circumstance which authorize the court to interfere the inattention of party  in a court of law can scarce be make a subject for the interference of a court  of equity it be only where effectual cognizance can b take at law that equity  interfere after verdict see also Protheroe v foreman swan William v lee atk  post c p but see light throw upon the real circumstance of the case by the  extract from Reg lib infra Reg lib a fol Edward duke the father of the  defendant enter into a bind for payment of pound to his say son he afterward  become joint cognizor of a bind to the son for payment of pound as the portion  of his sister the father die without leave asset sufficient to pay this last  bind his widow the plaintiff be Willing to pay the deficiency but be aware  that the first mention bind be give in trust for the father own use she refuse  to pay off the second bind till that so give in trust be deliver up it be  deliver up to her and she cancel it four year after the action in question be  bring and the verdict mention obtain now upon the hear of the cause and read  the proof the court be full satisfy of the combination and practice in the  bill charge and conceive the say bind be intend for the father own use and  that the name of the son be use only in trust for the father and that with  such bind his debt to that amount be Payable the court therefore hold it  unconscionable that the wife who be move out of charity and affection to her  husband sister to make payment of a debt account desperate and who will not  have engage for the same if the say other bind have not first be cancel shall  by this contrivance among the defendant be make liable to double payment of  the say debt by the say action and proceed which be part of the say practice  when she have reap no benefit by cancel the say bind and for that the son if  there be any just debt due to he may have relief for the same against the  father representative but the plaintiff can have no other relief but by this  suit the court declare the plaintiff ought to have relief here and do  therefore decree that the defendant shall be debar of and from all further  proceed in the say action and shall seal and execute to the plaintiff a  release of the say action and the cause thereof and that the injunction former  grant in this cause be continue and stand in force and therefore though the  jury have do well in their verdict for pound the bind be for pound yet she  ought to have the same remedy against the verdict in equity as she may have  have against the bind if it be in be and upon this she be relieve and in this  case the bill do not complain of or arraign the verdict but admit the verdict  and seek relief upon the original equity freeman c sir Samuel jones and  William jones executor of sir William