atkins case ex part bennet march see Thompson v Hudson lr Ch where a creditor  for pound agree with his debtor a fail man to take eleven shilling in the  pound to be pay by instalment and the debtor after the first payment become a  bankrupt Lord Hardwicke be incline to think the pound and not the amount of  the composition only may be prove under the commission of bankruptcy Lingood  be indebt in several large sum of money to Bennet and there be some dispute as  to the quantum of the debt Bennet who apprehend Lingood to be a fail man come  to a agreement with he in to refer the dispute to arbitration and article be  accord enter into by which it be agree to leave to arbitrator the adjust the  sum that shall be due to Bennet which when it shall be so fix Bennet be to  take of Lingood at the rate of eleven shilling in the pound only the  arbitrator award pound to be due to Bennet out of which deduct nine shilling  in the pound in pursuance of the article there remain pound be which be to be  pay to Bennet by instalment of pound every quarter of the year Lingood pay the  first and for the second give Bennet two note Payable at atkins er p a future  day which Bennet accept but before they be due Lingood become a bankrupt  Bennet insist before the commissioner that he have a right to prove his whole  debt of pound but the commissioner doubt whether he ought to come in as a  creditor for anymore than the composition of pound S and refuse to admit he  even for that sum unless he will give up for the benefit of the creditor in  general several bind enter into by Lord clanrickard and other to Lingood and  by he deliver to Bennet as a further security he petition the chancellor upon  both these point to be let in under the commission for his whole debt of pound  and to keep the bind notwithstanding Lord chancellor the question be whether  Bennet ought to be admit a creditor for pound S only which be the sum due upon  the composition or for the whole pound bennet acceptance of the two note from  Lingood instead of the money be a waver of the particular default in the  payment of this instalment but then the question be with regard to the default  which have be make since Lingood become a bankrupt now the general rule of  equity with respect to composition of debt have be right lie down that the  court will not dispense with the point of time in composition for where a  creditor agree to take less than his debt so that it be pay precise at the day  and the debtor fail of payment he can be relieve Eq Cas Abr sect this be in  the case atkins of common creditor and debtor but the question here be between  a creditor and a debtor who become a bankrupt by which other person be  interest the creditor at large commissioner after a man become a bankrupt  compute interest upon debt no low than the date of the commission because it  be a dead fund and in such a shipwreck if there be a savage of part to each  person in this general loss it be as much as can be expect see Bromeley v  goodere ante vol Bromeley v child ibidem but then the case of a composition  differ for it be break by the default of the debtor as he be guilty of a crime  and a tort in become a bankrupt and though the genius and turn of bankrupt act  be alter of late yet it be by the old act of parliament consider as a wrong  Bromley v goodere ante vol therefore whatever the accident be which happen to  the debtor it shall not affect a creditor who have compound to take a less sum  than the original debt upon the reason and justice of the thing it will be  very hard after Mr Bennet have agree to reduce his debt to eleven shilling in  the pound that he shall not be admit to prove the whole next question as to  the bind deliver to Bennet by Lingood before his bankruptcy if it have be a  mortgage assign to Bennet I shall have direct the mortgage premise to be sell  and if the produce arise from the sale have not be sufficient I will have  order that Bennet shall be admit under the commission as a creditor for the  deficiency the doubt be whether he can be admit to prove the whole sum unless  he will deliver up the bind I do not remember this case have ever come before  I since I have have the seal if they have be joint bind from the bankrupt and  another person to Bennet he may have come in for his whole debt under the  commission without be compel to deliver up such joint security as he be  entitle to get in what he can from the coobligor I do not absolute determine  the point now but will direct the commissioner to inquire what have n receive  by the creditor Mr Bennet from these bind and to state likewise the nature of  they and to certify the same to the court atkins case bennet versus lee march  upon a petition for a bill of review SC ante where party apply for leave to  bring a new bill upon new matter discover after a decree they must show that  it be relevant for it be new matter will not entitle they to such a bill Lord  chancellor this be a case of very great consequence to the practice of the  court it come before I upon two petition one be on the petition of Francis lee  a person atkins er p of full age who pray that he may rehear the cause which  be determine the that of June last vide anti under the title Bennet v vade and  that he may likewise exhibit a bill against the plaintiff one of the heir at  law of sir John lee to establish a entail under the will of sir John lee  father in the other be on the petition of Richard lee a infant and a party in  the cause who claim under the same entail a moiety of a estate in ken be  gavelkind with his brother Francis lee the other petitioner and as to the  freehold estate of the late sir John lee he claim only a remainder after  Francis the original bill be bring by Bennet and other coheir of sir John lee  to set aside the e several deed and conveyance by which sir John lee  disinherit they upon a suggestion of insanity and fraud for the contest there  relate to the sanity and capacity of sir John lee and charge double that if  not absolute insane yet of a weak understanding and therefore if the court can  not set the deed aside for insanity yet for fraud and imposition upon a weak  man they may the decree be find on the latter charge and the conveyance be set  aside as obtain against a weak and improvident person and the estate direct to  be reconvey to Bennet c and Francis lee be order to join in the conveyance but  Richard lee as a infant have a day to show cause after he come of age the  petition be find on different right sir John lee father of sir John lee make a  will in and after give a estatetail to his son limit to Francis lee the  grandfather of the petitioner the remainder in tail of his Surre estate and  the remainder in fee of his Kentish estate it be insist by Mr bennet counsel  that this remainder to sir Francis lee both in the Surre estate and the  Kentish estate be well bar by a recovery suffer of the former by sir John lee  the son on his marriage in and of the latter in and that consequent the court  will not suffer a new bill in the nature of a bill of review atkins now as to  Mr Francis lee he have no right by the course of the court to be let in t oh  make a new defence or to put in a better answer so that it be only by a bill  of review he can be admit and this not unless there be new matter discover  since the last bill and if he bring himself within this rule to be sure he be  entitle two question will arise as to he first whether the entail in the will  of be new matter unknown to he at the time of the original cause and come to  his knowledge since second if it do whether so material as to induce the court  to put the party to the expense of a new hear now it appear to I plain that he  be acquaint with this antecedent to the publication of the cause for that the  will be know to he be admit by himself in his answer and take notice of in the  bill itself the only way his counsel avoid it be that though he have notice of  the right under the will yet he have no notice of the settlement and recovery  on sir John lee marriage this be no answer for it be incumbent upon Mr Francis  lee to look out for the limitation under the settlement on sir John lee  marriage for as there be a limitation stand out in Francis lee whether it take  effect now or hereafter it be very proper he shall make use of this title  against the heir at law of sir John lee because such limitation be a  sufficient bar to they and their bill bring in contradiction to this very  title claim by Francis lee under the will in all these case where party apply  for leave to bring a new bill upon new matter discover after a decree they  must show that it be relevant for the court will not mere because it be new  matter direct a new bill to be bring where it will be entire vain and  fruitless therefore upon a former petition I direct the recovery to be look  into that Francis lee counsel may have show some error in it which they have  not be able to do but then it be say sir John lee be insane at the time of the  recovery suffer of the Kentish estate to let Mr Francis lee bring a new bill  upon this foot will be oh t extraordinary atkins I will lie it down so strong  that Francis lee have better lose the estate if he have ever so good a right  than the public suffer from such a precedent for in the last cause lie bring a  crossbill upon the very point of the sanity atkins er p of sir John lee and  examine a multitude of witness to prove he sane and to let he in the next day  and in the second cause to contradict what he attempt to prove in the first  will introduce all the perjury in the world for where the same point come in  question and where he endeavour to prove in direct contradiction to what he do  now be a practice the court will never suffer the great difficulty be with  regard to Richard lee the infant for he come upon the foundation of that right  a infant have to make the best defence the nature of the case will allow for  when infant come of age they be certain entitle to put in a new answer and to  make a better defence if they call fountain v Cain p W Napier v Effingham p W  this rule be find upon the reason of all other court where the parole be allow  to demurrer till the infant come of age for at law where even the suit be  bring by a infant as demandant the court in some case will admit the parole to  demurrer but then the make a difference between droitures and possessory  action vide the rule of the commonlaw as to the parole demurrer in Markals  case   in equity too even where the infant have be plaintiff the court have in  some few instance give he a day to show cause as in the case of sir John  Napier v lady Effingham but then the e be some extraordinary circumstance the  plaintiff sir John Napier a infant exhibit his petition to Lord chancellor  Parker for leave to bring a new bill show that his cause have be mismanage by  his former solicitor and make out the same by affidavit the court give he  leave to bring a new bill the defendant lady Effingham appeal from the order  to the house of lord she be let into the possession of the premise which she  claim under a conveyance from sir Theophilus Napier her first husband and  uncle of sir John who bring a bill to be relieve against this conveyance as  undue obtain but they give leave to the plaintiff to show cause within six  month after he come of age sir John Napier v lady Effingham p wms there be no  such thing as a difference in this court between writ of right and possessory  action for the decree here be the same and one have not more force or be more  bind than the other atkins it have be object that the infant come too early  and ought to stay till he be of age I have be look into a note I have of sir  John napier case by which it appear that Lord chancellor king in give his  opinion agree with sir Joseph Jekyll as to sir John put in a better answer but  disarm with he as to amend the bill and say as he be of age he may be at  liberty to rehear the cause the present case differ for here the person come  before he be of age and pray he may be allow to put in a better answer now I  be of opinion provide there be a foundation for it upon the merit that the  infant before be come of age be proper in apply to put in a better answer p  wms I do not say this be of course but it must depend upon circumstance here  if the infant do not put in a better answer now he may not perhaps be able to  come at the same evidence when he be of age indeed if it depend upon deed only  which will be forthcoming as well when be be of aye as now it will be  otherwise but the witness to sir John lee insanity swear to a fact of very  long stand must be advance in year and may very probable die before he come of  age beside defer it will be put the infant estate to the hazard for though I  do not say it will happen in this case yet a person who be put in as a  receiver may imbezil or prove insolvent I shall now come to the merit if it  rest single upon the entail and sir John lee be compos chin when the recovery  be suffer it will be very wrong to let the infant keep up this contest where  no fruit be to be expect from it but it be insist that sir John lee be non  compos or if not quite insane yet so weak and of such a mean capacity that he  be in no part of his life capable of suffer a recovery now the infant have a  right to say my interest have not be consult in this cause for I ought to have  be allow to join with the plaintiff and to have insist on carry the incapacity  of sir John lee so far back as to overreach the recovery of the estate in and  atkins therefore he be justify in save that his guardian have mistake his case  entire and I can in justice refuse he put in a better answer and make the best  defence ho can now this will introduce Mr Francis lee right for though be can  amend his answer or put in a new one or bring a new bill yet if upon a defence  set up by another person it shall come out to be the justice of the case that  the entail of the Kentish estate be still in be why then Mr Francis lee will  by the custom of ken atkins er p be entitle to a moiety for there be many case  where one party set up a title in consistent with the title set up by another  party and though he fail in his own claim yet he may appear to have a right to  something under the other claim and this court can consistent with justice  deprive he of it I will not absolute determine this point now but will suspend  that part of the decree which direct Mr Francis lee to join in the conveyance  of the Kentish estate until this question be settle and dismiss Mr Francis lee  petition as to every thing else his lordship do order upon the petition of  Richard lee the infant that he be at liberty to amend his answer to the  original bill or to put in a new answer thereto and his lordship do order upon  the petition of Francis lee that the performance of the part of the decree  whereby the say Francis lee be decree to join in a conveyance of the Kentish  estate c be suspend as to the say Francis lee until the cause shall come again  to be hear on t new defence to be make by the say Richard lee the infant Reg  lib a fol