case Peyton all versus Ayliffe mark in court Lord keeper a possess of a lease  for year be outlaw for treason the king grant away the term the outlawry be  reverse the term ought to be restore the case be sir Robert Peyton the  plaintiff father be possess of several house in the old Bailey for long term  of year grant to he by the city of London make a mortgage of the premise and  be entitle to the equity of redemption be in the reign of king James the  second outlaw for high treason a inquisition be afterward sue out and find  Peytons title to the house in question and the same be thereupon seize into  the king hand the kin be thus entitle by letter patent in consideration of one  hundred pound grant the premise to the defendant Ayliffe who have also get a  assignment of the mortgage the outlawry be afterward reverse for error Vernon  chancery case the plaintiff as executor to his father to who he be also heir  bring this bill to redeem the mortgage the question be whether by the reversal  of the outlawry he ought to be restore to his equity of redemption  notwithstanding the seizure into the king hand and grant make by letter patent  as aforesaid vide hale p c it be insist by the plaintiff counsel that only the  profit during the time the outlawry stand in force be forfeit and not the  lease itself and consequent the equity of redemption be not forfeit the lease  be the principal be to be restore upon the reversal although the profit be  forfeit and lose and for that purpose cite the case of Eyre and Woodfine in Cr  Elizabeth upon reversal of a outlawry for recusancy the party be restore to a  chattel lease and Beverley and Cornwall case in more more the party upon  reversal restore to the right of present to a live and the case of pinfold and  Northey in the exchequer Le v by the name of pinfold v east India company the  party restore to east India stock though grant away by privy seal and transfer  pursuant thereunto in the company be book and the case of garret and the earl  of holland in the court of about the year where a man that have a debt due to  he by judgement and be outlaw progers the grantee from the crown acknowledge  satisfaction upon the record of the judgement and yet upon reversal that  acknowledgement of satisfaction set aside and restitution make and also the  case in e put in hoe   b roll Abr case in the five re port they admit that as  to the profit receive there can be no restitution the judgement upon the  reversal be to be restore to what be not answer to the king but the party be  always restore to the principal thing forfeit which in this case be the lease  and seem to doubt whether a equity of redemption of a term for year be forfeit  by the outlawry or not mortgagee in fee after forfeiture be attaint and the  king seize and whether mortgagor shall redeem to waver in opinion Pawlett v  attorneygeneral hard in attorneygeneral v Sudell all pre Ch it be say arg that  this court help the king to a equity of redemption be entitle by forfeiture  for treason for the defendant it be answer that as to the case of Vernon  chancery case Eyre and Woodfine that will not be much to the present question  for there be a great difference between a outlawry for treason and a outlawry  for recusancy where although the outlawry be regular and no error to be find  in it yet if the party at any time conform the outlawry be to fall and yet in  that case the Lord chief baron periam differ in opinion from the other baron  and as to the case of pinfold and Northey there the grant be make to the  person at who suit the party be outlaw and do take it that the person who sty  and outlaw the defendant have a right to be satisfy in the first place and if  while the estate remain in his hand the outlawry be reverse there may be  reason the party shall be restore as where a term be take in execution if  deliver over to the party on reversal of the judgement the defendant shall be  restore to the term but if the term be sell to a stranger there though the  judgement shall be afterward reverse the party shall not be restore to the  term and here in this case the defendant have not purchase from the sheriff  but from the king himself and insist there be no case in the book where a term  for year after a outlawry be actual sell be ever restore to the party upon the  reversal of the outlawry land of inheritance or a freehold shall be restore  but not the mesne profit and as the profit be forfeit and lose so be a term  for year when take into the king hand and dispose of be but a personal thing  and cite the case Vernon chancery case er p of Wilkinson and Rockley in Kebles  report keb the king have no interest in the land by the outlawry but only  precaution of the profit sir Thomas Jones S c where after seizure into the  king hand upon reversal of the outlawry the party be not immediate restore but  put to plead it off in the exchequer and ought so to do at least in this case  the seizure be not only of the equity of redemption but of the term itself and  cite the case of Goodier and ince in crook Cr roll where Vernon chancery case  upon a reversal after a elegit there shall be restitution from the party but  not from the king the Lord keeper decree the plaintiff shall be admit to  redeem his lordship declare that the aforesaid attainder and outlawry be legal  reverse and set aside before sir Robert Peytons death the say sir Robert  Peyton become thereby well inititled to the equity of redemption and that the  plaintiff his executor ought to be admit to a redemption upon payment to the  defendant of his principal interest and cost discount the mesne profit receive  by he but whether the defendant ought to account for the same from the time of  his entry or from the reversal of the outlawry he have be in possession of the  premise under the grant a considerable time before the take in the mortgage be  reserve until the master shall make his report on the matter therein direct  Reg lib b fol afterward d April the cause come on upon the master report when  the defendant be decree to account for the profit of the say premise receive  by he or for his use since his entry thereon Reg lib b fol the judgement upon  the reversal be that the party shall be restore to all that have not be answer  to the king which in all case have be understand of the mesne profit answer to  the king and not as to the principal thing itself though seize into the king  hand and that be undoubted so as to a freehold or inheritance and he see no  substantial difference in the case of a leasehold and take notice that the  case of Northey and pinfold be end by compromise but the Lord chief baron hale  be of opinion that there ought to have be restitution in that case and adjudge  that action of trespass for mesne profit after reversal of outlawry lie for  that by the reversal it be as if no outlawry have be and there be no record of  it Ognells case cro Elizabeth et vide the same principle recognize in dr drury  case Rep p at the top Vernon chancery case de boundary paschae in curian  porter