case sir John Packington versus barrow Eq Abr c S c vern e contra vern if a  fine be gain by fraud from a feme covert under age who die and her heir buy in  a prior mortgage and then levy a fine and five year pass and then those who  claim under the fine bring a bill to redeem c equity will not assist they  claim under such fraudulent title and also by reason of the fine and nonclaim  sir Herbert parrot have issue Herbert Parrott his son and heir by his first  wife and his second he have issue a daughter who be marry to the plaintiff sir  John Packington Herbert Parrott marry a young heiress and by indirect mean  procure her to levy a fine of her inheritance when she be under age and sir  Herbert Parrott his father be one of the commissioner who take the fine and  the use of the fine be declare to be to her and her husband and the heir of  their two body remainder to the heir of the survivor she afterward die in her  minority without issue and her husband survive her and make a mortgage of the  premise or part of they to Mr Vanaker and die without issue and the land  descend to James Parrott his uncle and from he to sir Herbert Parrott his  elder brother and from he to his daughter the wife of the plaintiff sir John  Packington but the defendant barrow who be heir at law to mrs Parrott who have  levy the fine have purchase in Vanakers mortgage and precedent in chancery get  into possession and levy a fine and five year pass and the deed declare the  use of the fine that be levy by Mr Parrott and his wife be lose sir John  Packington and his wife who be entitle under this deed and fine bring this  bill to have a discovery of the deed and a redemption of the mortgage the  defendant plead the ill practice in obtain the fine and also his own fine and  nonclaim and that there be no such deed as the plaintiff seek a discovery of  or if there be it be obtain by fraud on argue the plea the benefit of it be  save to the hear and now the cause come on to be hear the plaintiff have prove  such deed to be execute and the substance of it will have it presume to be in  the defendant custody because he have purchase in the mortgage and the  mortgagee can have no good title without it and pray that the mortgage may not  be set up against they the defendant allege that the plaintiff have not prove  that the defendant have the say deed or purchase in the say mortgage or that  there be any mortgage at all or if there be it be but of part of the land and  therefore will not hinder the their go to law and say that the fine levy by  the defendant and nonclaim make a good title at law to he or however that this  court will not assist the plaintiff who claim under a fine so ill obtain and  the rather for that the plaintiff be volunteer without any agreement previous  to the marriage of the say feme covert to settle her estate it be reply that  no doubt there be such a mortgage else the defendant need not oppose a order  that it shall not be set up at law that the defendant be no purchaser and  though the court will not perhaps aid a ineffectual voluntary conveyance yet  if the conveyance be good the court will assist it to have all the consequence  of a conveyance precedent in chancery curian the defendant insist there be no  such deed or if there be it be obtain by malpractice and also on a fine and  nonclaim and sir Herbert in take the fine from his daughterinlaw can not have  be assist here and the plaintiff claim under he all title at law that be not  direct against conscience shall be assist here to a redemption and if there be  only a blemish in the title so shall the plaintiff but I can get over the fine  and nonclaim the plea be good dismiss the bill precedent in chancery er p