c Salisbury v Baggett S c Ch can and more circumstantial as well as more  correct from Lord nottingham ms in swan equity bar by a fine post case Inst it  be hold than a equity of redemption by reference to the correct report where  above it will be see that the suit arise out of article of agreement for a  marriage settlement and that no mortgage or equity of redemption come in  question Lord Redesdale in Kennedy v Daly Sch and lefr advert to the report of  this case as give in Ch can where above and his lordship doubt as to the  correctness of that statement be confirm by the above cite ms of Lord  Nottingham will be bar by a fine as a general principle it may be observe that  a fine can only be a bar when at the time it be levy it divest the estate and  this it can do where the cognizor or cognizee have not a absolute estate of  freehold in the premise either by right or wrong but a mortgagee can seize his  mortgagor and so gain a tortuous freehold if he enter into and take actual  possession of the mortgage premise such possession will be consistent with his  title as mortgagee and a fine levy by he will not bar the mortgagor Welden v  duke of York vern Stowell v zouch Plowden Suffyns case Rep so a fine levy by a  mortgagor who be allow to remain in possession will be inoperative as against  the mortgagee focus v Salisbury Hardr story v Lord Windsor atk these general  principle must however be restrict within due bind common convenience point  out the propriety of make abstract right yield in certain case to the more  important consideration of prevent interminable doubt and insecurity as to the  title to estate after repeat and elaborate discussion the case of cholmondeley  v Clinton James and walk have it be to be hope final settle that adverse  possession of a equity of redemption for twenty year be a bar so twenty year  possession of a estate by the mortgagee without render a account or possession  for the same period by the mortgagor without payment of interest or any other  acknowledgement of the mortgage debt will be a bar with or without a fine levy  as all the authority be critical consider in the case cite it will be mere  bookmaking to do more than refer the reader thereto if no claim be make in  five year and that a entry into the land will not serve because the entry be  not lawful but the party must bring his subpoena or else he will be bar and a  entry will in no case serve the turn but where the party have a right of entry  Stowell v zouch Plowd Stapleton v Sherrard vern post append c Reg lib b fol  the Lord chancellor dismiss the bill as far as it seek relief against the fine  but without cost therefore if tenant in tail discontinue and the discontinue  levy a fine and then tenant in tail die the entry of the issue in five year  time will not serve the turn because his entry be not lawful but he must bring  his formedon in five year or else he will be bar freeman and he say the  statute of h have alter the commonlaw for now a entry of a claim at the foot  of the fine will not serve but there must be now either a actual entry or a  claim for so it be appoint by the word of the statute