Bazzelgetti v Battine Battine v Bazzelgetti the bill in the first cause state  a grant of a annuity in July by the plaintiff to the defendant and a agreement  that as soon as the defendant shall become possess of certain estate of which  he be then in expectation he shall swanston er p convey they for secure the  payment of the annuity and that the defendant have become entitle to the  estate and be in possession of they but refuse to complete the security and  conceal the particular of the estate a demurrer and plea have be overrule the  defendant file a answer admit the annuity to be in arrear and that by the  death of his father in Nov he become entitle to certain freehold estate the  particular of which he set forth in a schedule and submit whether the  plaintiff be entitle to the relief seek a receiver have be appoint Reg lib a  fol the defendant file a cross bill allege that the grant of the annuity be  void and pray that upon payment of the price of the annuity and interest after  deduction of the pass payment the security may be deliver up upon a motion by  the plaintiff in the cross cause to discharge the receiver the Lord chancellor  that Feb express a opinion that even admit the validity of the objection to  the annuity the frame of dr Battines bill which pray the delivery of the  security not absolute but on term of redemption give to the court a  jurisdiction which it will not otherwise have have and entitle the annuitant  to continue the receiver on the estate for the purpose of work out the payment  on that Feb these cause be hear before chief baron Richard sit for the master  of the roll when the grant of the annuity be declare void and the bill in the  first cause dismiss the principle of relief be that the annuitant have no  right to retain deed which be void but that the grantor be interest in obtain  the delivery of they because though void they may be use to his prejudice and  form in the technical phrase a cloud on some of his title be void for all  purpose the deed can as evidence of the contract under which they be execute  impose on the delivery term of redemption or create a lie on the property the  follow be the lead case from which the doctrine be to be collect duke of  Bolton v William bro c c Ves Jun Byne v Vivian Ves Bromley v holland Ves coop  Jones v Harris Ves Underhill v Horwood Ves ex part wright Ves angel v Hadden  mere if the grantor by his bill or answer submit to account for the price pay  by the annuity the payment in respect of the annuity will be set off Bromley v  holland where above hoffman v cook Ves if those payment exceed the amount of  the price of the annuity with interest the grantee must refund the balance  Byne v Vivian Ves Holbrook v Sharpey Ves but see Ves on the general  jurisdiction of court of equity to compel the delivery of void instrument  which have be the subject of contradictory opinion and even decision see in  addition to the precede case Ryan v Mackmath bro c c pierce v web bro c c  Edward belt n Newman v milner Ves Jun Franco v Bolton Ves with the criticism  of Lord Eldon Ves mason v gardener bro c c Sowerby v warder Cox Scott v Nesbit  bro c c Cox Lisle v Liddel Anstr Duff v Atkinson Ves jackman v Mitchell Ves  Hayward v dimsdale Ves Jones v frost mad Redesdale on plead n c Ves V b ex  part scrivener Ves Bea in Bromley v holland Lord Eldon remark that in the case  of hanington v Du chastel where Lord Thurlow grant a injunction against a bind  for the purchase of a office take notice of the alteration of the law of plead  he be make to intimate that the jurisdiction of this court may not be  necessary if the defence can be make at law that I take to be a mistake for I  be quite sure swanston er p Lord Thurlow opinion be that court of law proper  if you please take upon themselves to do that by new form of plead which they  have never before do as dispense with profert or permit the averment of a  consideration not in the body of the deed can not destroy the ancient  jurisdiction of this court in matter of that nature that unquestionable be his  opinion Ves Mr vesey refer to Atkinson v Leonard bro c c the follow account of  hanington v Du chastel of which the print report bro c c dick wooddeson sect n  be extreme imperfect be extract from a manuscript in the possession of the  editor in chancery Michaelmas term in I hanington be house steward to the late  earl of Rochfort who be at that time groom of the steal to king George d the  place of one of the page of the back stair which place be in the appointment  or recommendation of the earl as groom of the steal become vacant the earl be  desirous of provide for Jean saint Feriol who be a foreigner and therefore  incapable of hold the place but who have be tutor to the earl enter into a  agreement with I hanington to give the place to he upon condition among other  thing of his secure a annuity of pound to saint Feriol accord I h execute a  bind date that June in the penalty of pound condition for the payment of a  annuity of pound to saint Feriol provide I h shall enjoy the place during the  life of saint Feriol but if the place shall be take away then to be void I h  have the place and for some time pay the annuity to saint Feriol who die that  may leave defendant Du chastel his executor the defendant have bring a action  and obtain a verdict against I h on the bind for the arrear of the annuity due  at the death of saint Feriol this bill be file by I h against Du chastel pray  that the bind may be declare void and deliver up to be cancel and a injunction  to stay execution at law on motion to dissolve the injunction it be contend on  the part of the plaintiff that this be a proper subject for the interference  of a court of equity the profit of the place be not sufficient or more than  sufficient to pay the several annuity but independent of that circumstance  this court will set aside this sort of contract upon general political  principle in this case a court of law can not relieve Lord Rochfort not be the  obligee of the bind the case do not come within the statute of Edward that c  the case cite be law v law forester p W grey v hesketh burn Ecc law vol p  Debenham v ox vezey Godolphin v Tudor salk king v Vaughan hawk P C sir Thomas  Raymond the reference be incorrect burr on the part of the defendant it be  argue that this matter be not proper for a court of equity the whole  transaction may have be set out upon plea this court never give relief for  mispleading at law if this be turpis shrinking a court of law will relieve it  do not come under any of the lead of which a court of equity take cognizance  namely fraud trust accident and account a distinction be also take by Graham  between office of a public nature and office relate to the king in his private  capacity and he argue that the office of a page of the back stair be of the  latter kind it be not within the mischief intend to be prevent by saint Edward  that and that the bind be not objectionable on political principle the Lord  chancellor Thurlow here be two question whether this contract be to be relieve  where as to the first it matter not whether the office be of a public or  private nature it may be equal contrary to the policy of the law it be a  public concern that private injury shall be redress this be the foundation of  the decision in this court between guardian and ware the multiply private  injury make they public if a private manager of a estate enter into a  agreement and thereby break trust with his master the agreement be corrupt I  think therefore that no distinction can be make between public and private  servant beside which the law have not say that the groom page c about the king  be mere menial servant on the contrary they be entitle to privilege and  therefore clear distinguish from private servant this contract be therefore to  be relieve second where this court do not apply equity to a case within the  pro swanston er p Vince of a court of law but the jurisdiction of the court of  law have not always be clear ascertain the case of dowing v chapman be then  consider as a doubtful case this case come clear under the head of fraud I can  refuse relief in this court in a case which have never be relieve in a court  of law though I think it will be relieve there many case will be wrong if  relief be to be refuse under that circumstance injunction grant Feb the cause  come on to be hear Reg lib a fol Lord chancellor first can a plaintiff come  into a court of equity and recover a bind which he have enter into under these  circumstance there have be some difference of opinion on the subject but I  profess I can admit the distinction between malum to hold before and malum  inter see when apply to a contract in a country where the law have prohibit  the thing contract to be do the obligation to abide by the law of the land be  part of the duty of a citizen and therefore I can see the difference see  cannon v Bryce barn Ald it be impossible to bring the case to any other point  than this that the encouragement of the contract contrary to the good of the  public as prescribe by law and therefore the good of the public require to put  a end to such contract otherwise it will be a unequivocal declaration of law  that the party shall have all the benefit of the contract for the law approve  what it refuse to rescind and this must be the fundamental principle of all  the case that it be a transaction on a foundation which ought not to have be  the basis of a civil contract if so this be a proper place for relief second  whether this be turpis causan I will not allow myself to go into invective  upon the present occasion Lord Rochfort may have be lead into a error he have  many very valuable and amiable quality indeed there be many reason to prevent  my speak severe on this occasion as to what have be say on the statute of  Edward it go more to a legislative than a judicial proceed when the law be  make it be no more a subject of inquiry whether what the law have ordain be  proper or not nor need I go into the nature of office but what I be to  determine upon mere be whether if one person be authorize to recommend or  appoint another person to a office under a three person he can without the  privity of the three person and for a private consideration of his own  recommend or appoint such other person to such office between private person I  shall think it will be a breach of the confidence repose on he but I do not  mean to leave a service about the crown in the same situation as a private  service the law have never consider the servant about the crown whether menial  or other as private person here then we must consider express the case of  servant about the crown it do not now seem to be contend that the bind will  have be good if it have be give to Lord Rochfort himself now if the contract  itself be wrong how can I make the difference the danger of make the  distinction be great it will perhaps have make the point strong and it will  have look more ugly but take it as a dry maxim or as to the policy of the law  it become the same thing therefore the injunction must be perpetual in  addition to the authority refer to on the former occasion be cite   Litt a  Laurence v braiser Charles can Berrisford v do vern Symonds v Gibson vern  Blankland v Debby Ch just holt probable Blankard v Galde Rep tempt holt Mod  salk comb Skelton v Skelton swanston n er