case Tidcombe versus Boddington if the colonel of the army make a assignment  of the offreckoning of any year for the cloth of that year and have before  anticipate these offreckonings of that year for the cloth of the forgo year he  shall be answerable in his own person if the agreement be so word as to charge  he and that the off reckon of the follow year be so far divert by alter the  establishment of the regiment as not to be applicable to make good these  payment plaintiff be colonel of a regiment of foot in his majesty service  enter into a agreement with one moyer who it seem be a partner with the  defendant Boddington for cloth his regiment for the year the contract be in  write and be make in the name of one chamber and be that moyer shall furnish  the regiment with such and such particular clothes at such particular prince  at the make of the bargain it be agree between moyer and the plaintiff that  the plaintiff be not to precedent in chancery be liable in axis own person or  estate for the money but that moyer be to be pay out of the offreckonings and  he be entrust by the plaintiff to have the contract draw accord when the  contract be present to the plaintiff by he to be execute he desire time to  advice with his counsel whether it be so draw as that he can not be charge in  his own person or estate and moyer assure he it be so draw he thereupon  execute it and the same time deliver moyer a assignment for his whole money  out of the offreckonings upon the paymaster and by virtue of that assignment  about pound be receive by the course of payment in the army when a assignment  be make of the off reckon for payment of the cloth of any year if the  offreckonings of that year be not sufficient to complete the payment he that  have such assignment be to receive out of the offreckonings of the follow year  till his payment be complete and the regiment be in arrear for their cloth the  assignment that be to they that cloth the army in be not pay by the  offreckonings of that year but take up good part of the offreckonings of the  year in the year a act of parliament be make which appropriate the off reckon  of the year to the payment of the cloth for that year only and no precedent in  chancery er p other so that Boddington be thereby prevent from have any  satisfaction out of the offreckonings of that year as else by the course of  payment in the army he will have have and this regiment happen just at that  time to be remove into Ireland and put upon a new establishment Boddington be  thereby prevent from have any further benefit of his assignment upon the  offreckonings and be like to lose his money thereupon consult with his lawyer  what to do he be advice that as the contract be he may precedent in chancery  charge the colonel in his own right whereupon he bring his action at law  against he in the name of the trustee and Tidcombe have unadvised plead that  the clothes be not deliver accord to the contract the plaintiff at law recover  the whole sum mention in the contract whereupon colonel Tidcombe bring this  bill to be relieve against the recovery at law both Boddington and moyer do by  their answer confess that they be to expect their payment out of the  offreckonings and that the colonel be not to be charge himself in his own  right unless he do some way divert they or prevent they from have the benefit  of they and that in case the offreckonings of any year do not suffice to pay  the cloth of that year he who have a assignment on the offreckonings be to  receive out of the offreckonings of the subsequent year till his payment be  complete but insist that Tidcombe have divert the offreckonings of videlicet  by the say assignment for the cloth of and that at the time of the contract  they know not that the regiment be so indebt but the contrary to that be prove  and make moyer on that account insist upon have high prince at the hear it be  urge for the plaintiff that if this contract be so draw as to charge the  colonel in his person it be a fraud in moyer who be entrust with the draw of  it to have it so draw and he upon the execute of it affirm it be so draw as  not to charge the colonel in person and thereby prevail on he to execute it  without advice with counsel as else he will have do that moyer and Boddington  both know of the assignment for the cloth of the year and it be confess by  they both that the colonel be not to be charge in person if he do not prevent  they of the benefit of the offreckonings and that he have do no other act  whatsoever for the defendant it be say they be honest creditor and have  recover at law and that a court precedent in chancery of equity ought not to  hinder they from get their money that no parole proof of the plaintiff ought  to be admit against the agreement in write that the assignment to the former  clothier be a anticipation make by the plaintiff and that he ought to make  good the money Lord keeper Boddington do admit by his answer the course of  payment in the army but say where payment of the offreckonings be prevent by  the colonel or the party anyway hinder from receive the same the colonel be to  be answerable and by the establishment of the army the offreckonings of every  year be to answer and pay the cloth of that particular year and the  offreckoning of be anticipate by the colonel for the cloth of the year and  sure one witness to a parole agreement be not sufficient to set aside a  contract in write and therefore the plaintiff can be relieve for more than  what be pay which must be discount out of the money recover afterward the  plaintiff appeal to the house of lord and the cause be hear by they but they  delay give judgement on purpose that the party may agree the matter which they  do then the decree be confirm by consent though the lord seem dispose to  reverse it