case sir robert Howard against the queen trustee and the attorneygeneral queen  ere if the stewardship of a manor be grantable in reversion upon a bill  exhibit in the duchy court the question be whether the stewardship of a manor  be grantable in reversion or not the attorneygeneral and queen counsel butler  and hanmore hold that it be not but Pemberton sergeant and Mr Thursby will  have argue to the contrary for they say it may be grant in fee or for any less  estate and so in reversion for it may be execute by deputy a see this question  determine in Howard v lVood t Jones a but this question arise upon a plea and  demurrer the debate thereof be respite till the hear of the cause which be the  usual practice in chancery as north chief justice who assist the chancellor of  the duchy inform the court and he say that in all court of equity the usual  course be when a bill be exhibit to have money decree due on a bind upon a  suggestion that the bind be lose there must be oath make of it for otherwise  the cause be proper triable at the commonlaw and such course be to be observe  in all the like case where the plaintiff by surmise of the loss of a deed draw  the defendant into equity but if the case be proper in its own nature for a  court of conscience and in case where the deed be not lose the remedy desire  in chancery can not be obtain on a trial at law there though it be allege that  the deed be lose oath need not be make of it as if there be a deed in which  there be a covenant for far assurance and the party come in equity and pray  the thing to be do in specie there be no need of a oath of the loss of such  deed because if it be not lose the party can not at law have the thing for  which he pray relief for be can only recover damage modern note also that be  say in the case of one Oldfield that it be the constant practice where a bill  be exhibit in equity to foreclose the right of redemption if the mortgagor be  foreclose be pay no cost and though it be urge for he that he shall pay no  cost in this case because the mortgagee be dead and the heir within age and  the money can not safe be pay without a decree yet it be necessary for he to  come into equity he must pay for that necessity note also the difference  between a mortgage in fee and for year for if it be in fee the mortgagor can  have a reconveyance upon payment of the money till the heir come of age it be  agree in this case by the court that if there be tenant for life remainder in  fee and they join in a deed purport a absolute sale if it be prove to be but a  mortgage he shall have his estate for life again pay pro rate and accord to  his estate and so it shall be in the case between tenant in dower and the heir  modern er p hilary term the twentyeighth and twentyninth of Charles the second  in the common plea sir Francis north Knt chief justice sir Hugh Wyndham Knt  sir Robert Atkins Knt sir William Scroggs Knt Jus ice sir William Jones Knt  attorneygeneral sir Francis winnington Knt solicitor general