case catherine take appellant bishop of ely and other respondent that January  Mews dig ringtail after a decree of foreclosure have be make absolute and the  mortgagee for many year in possession he make his will and thereby dispose of  the mortgage debt in these word and if Mr s s debt be well pay as I doubt not  but it will I order my executor to pay the sum of pound which be the exact  amount of the debt among the child of my nephew hold that this devise do not  open the foreclosure and that the testator call it a debt do not alter the  nature of his estate in the premise order and decree of Lord keeper wright  affirm see Powell on mortgage vol two chap as to the exercise of the  jurisdiction of court of equity in open foreclosure with respect to which it  seem that no general rule can be lie down either as relate to the time which  seem shall be consider as a bar or to the particular circumstance which will  entitle a suitor to this interposition of the court for case of this sort  embrace such a variety of consideration and be frequent so complicate in their  nature that each depend in a great degree upon its own combine circumstance  and may be consider rather as a instance of brown the fact that the court will  interfere to open a foreclosure than as a general rule as to the circumstance  in which relief will be give thus in the case of burgh v Langton post can a  decreet of foreclosure be open after year where the bill be against a  mortgagee who have obtain his security part by original mortgage and part by  assignment procure under colour of be a friend to the mortgagor but in truth  with a view to get he into his power that the mortgagee may upon his own term  purchase his estate which be worth three time as much as the money that have  be advance thereupon but in the case of lante v crisp post can where the  mortgagee in enter into possession upon a foreclosure make absolute by consent  and consider himself as have a absolute estate in the mortgage premise by  virtue of the decree proceed to make improvement thereon by pull down building  that be ruinous the mortgagor year after move the court for further time to  redeem and it be so order upon term this and several similar order grant  thereupon be reverse by the house of lord upon the ground state in the note to  that case as also on the ground that the mortgagee have be two year in  possession before he begin alteration on the estate when he may look upon it  as his own have such a title as will satisfy a purchaser and that the money  report due to he amount to as much as the clear rend at year purchase  exclusive of subsequent interest and cost so in the case of Wichalse executor  v short in this work title evidence can neither overvalue in the estate or  even a parole agreement to redeem be hold by Lord Cowper or Lord Harcourt to  be sufficient reason to open a foreclosure after year and their decree be  affirm on appeal in the present case the mortgagee call it a debt brown er p  to a collateral purpose only be hold not to alter the nature of his estate and  in Jones v Kenrick post can a decree of foreclosure be refuse to be set aside  after year for matter of form only even although the estate become of  considerable more value than the money lend thereon and a demurrer to such  bill be hold good viner vol p note to can Eq can ab can in the year and  Charles stuteville Esq make several mortgage of his estate in the county of  Suffolk to sir Francis north for secure several sum of money amount in the  whole to pound and in sir Francis north in consideration of pound S pay to he  by the lady glenham assign over all his security upon this estate to her and  her trustee lady glenham have another demand upon Mr stuteville of pound in  easter term exhibit her bill against he in the court of chancery pray that he  may either pay heir both these debt with interest and cost be foreclose of his  equity of redemption and this cause be hear in easter term the defendant be  decree to pay both debt with interest and cost by a limit time and in default  thereof that he shall be foreclose but he neglect so to do the foreclosure be  afterward make absolute and the decree enrol in may lady glenham assign this  decree and all her interest therein to sir William dolben one of the justice  of the court of king bench who be keep out of possession do in bring several  ejectment and thereby recover part of the premise the residue be hold by mrs  Judith stuteville the mother of Charles as have a estate for life prior to the  mortgage soon afterward Mr justice dolben die have make his will and thereof  constitute the respondent sir Gilbert sole executor and residuary legatee but  in this will be the follow clause brown and if Mr Stutevilles debt be well pay  as I doubt not but it will I order my executor Gilbert dolben to pay the sum  of pound among the child of my nephew John dolben and it seem that upon  calculation this sum of pound exact agree with the money decree to be pay with  the interest thereof from the time of the decree to the date of the testator  will upon the death of mrs Judith stuteville the respondent sir Gilbert bring  a ejectment and recover the land hold by her so that he be now in possession  of the whole estate in July Charles stuteville exhibit his bill in chancery  against sir Gilbert dolben pray that he may be at liberty to redeem on payment  of the mortgagemoney and interest but to this bill the defendant plead the  former decree of foreclosure and insist that the plaintiff ought not to be let  into a redemption on the that of July this cause come on to be hear before the  Lord chancellor summer when the defendant plea be allow but his lordship be  please to recommend a accommodation between the party and accord it be order  by consent that the defendant shall be at liberty to redeem upon payment of  principal interest and cost to be compute by the master the defendant however  not comply with this order nor be Willing to abide by the judgement of the  court on the plea move for leave to amend his bill and this the court think  proper to grant on condition of his give his own recognizance not to disturb  sir Gilbert dolben or his tenant nor commit waste but if he refuse to comply  with this condition in a month then his bill be to be dismiss with cost  without further motion and Mr stuteville not comply with this order his bill  be dismiss accord Mr stuteville still apprehend he have a right to redeem by  deed date the that of may settle the premise upon trustee in trust to sell and  pay sir Gilbert dolben and all his other creditor and then in trust for  himself his heir executor administrator and assign he also make his will and  thereby devise all his estate real and personal and his equity of redemption  in the premise unto the appellant her heir executor administrator and assign  and soon afterward die in December eighteen year after the decree of  foreclosure sir Gilbert dolben assign over all his estate and interest in the  premise to the Lord bishop of Ely in consideration of pound who afterward  purchase of the representative of brown er p mrs Judith stuteville a debt of  pound due to her for the arrear of her jointure and for which she have obtain  a decree whereby the whole estate stand charge with this debt in June the  appellant exhibit her bill in the court of chancery against both the  respondent pray a redemption of the premise on the foot of lady Glenhams  decree and that she may have a reconveyance and a account of the rend and  profit brown to this bill the defendant sir Gilbert plead the decree of  foreclosure the bishop likewise plead that decree and his several purchase  from sir Gilbert and the representative of mrs stuteville and upon argue these  plead before the Lord keeper wright on the saint of July they be allow from  this order the plaintiff appeal insist c Phipps n Lechmere principal that by  Mr justice dolben will and the subsequent proceed the foreclosure be open and  that nothing have be since do to bar the appellant of her equity of redemption  on the other side it be contend e Jennings that sir William dolben call it a  debt in his will to a collateral purpose only can not alter the nature of the  estate he have in the premise and if he have call it a feesimple estate when  it be only a term of year that will not have make it a feesimple estate that  the bishop of Ely be a purchaser of the estate at a very great price under a  decree which have be sign and enrol above year and be twice allow as a good  plea in bar of the redemption after hear counsel on this appeal it be order  and adjudge that the same shall be dismiss and the decree and order therein  complain of affirm jour vol p