case Lord DUNSANY appellant thomas shaw respondent that march Mews dig xiv the  heir of a mortgagor file his bill to redeem a old mortgage make by demise for  year under a rend of S and redeemable at any time on pay pound at one entire  payment the defendant plead his title as a purchaser for a valuable  consideration under a marriage settlement without notice of the mortgage the  settlement be make by the original mortgagee and there be a quiet possession  of year the plea be allow where a plaintiff reply to a plea he admit it to be  a good bar if the fact therein allege be true and therefore can afterward  complain of the order make for allow the plea but must proceed to examine  witness to falsify it order of the Irish chancery AFFIRMED See ante case and  the note there Edward plunket the appellant father soon after the restoration  videlicet in exhibit his claim before the commissioner appoint to put in  execution the act of settlement and explanation in Ireland thereby pray to be  decree inter alian to the town and land of Kentstown Veldentown brown alias  Peldenstown Curraghstown and Erick alias Knockirk alias Knockburly with their  appurtenance in the barony of Duleck and county of meath part of the ancient  estate of the Dunsany family and on hear this claim on the saint of August it  be adjudge and decree that the say Edward plunket be a innocent papist within  the true intent and meaning of the say act and that he and his heir shall be  restore to the say estate William shaw the respondent grandfather be chief  agent and manager for Patrick Lord Dunsany and the say Edward plunket his son  in all their affair and particular in prosecute and carry on the say claim and  in obtain the say decree of innocence and also in procure a clause in the act  of settlement brown er p whereby after recite that the say Patrick Lord  Dunsany and some other nobleman and gentleman therein particular name have for  reason know to his majesty in a especial manner merit his royal grace and  favour it be declare that every of they shall without be put to any further  proof be restore to their former estate accord to the rule and direction in  the say act for that purpose specify and afterward in procure a further clause  in the act of explanation by which it be enact among other thing that  forthwith and without any previous reprisal the say Lord Patrick and his heir  shall be restore to the possession of his principal and capital seat and also  one three part of all other his estate of what kind or nature soever of which  he or any other person to his use or in trust for he be seize or possess of  upon the d of October and that with all convenient speed the whole residue  thereof shall be restore to he and his heir the respective adventurer or  soldier or their heir then in possession thereof or claim the same be first  satisfy their respective share and proportion due to they by the say act the  say Edward plunket and Catherine his wife together with Christopher plunket  then their old son and heirapparent and the say Patrick Lord Dunsany by  indenture date the that of November mortgage the say premise to the say  William shaw for year at the rend of S per and subject to the follow condition  or proviso of redemption videlicet that whensoever the say Patrick Lord baron  of Dunsany Edward plunket Catherine plunket and Christopher plunket or any of  they their or any of their heir or assign shall pay or cause to be pay to the  say William shaw his executor administrator or assign the just and full sum of  pound sterling in one entire payment that then and from thenceforth the say  indenture of demise and the say estate and term thereby grant shall be utter  void frustrate and of no effect and that then and from thenceforth it shall  and may be lawful to and for the say Edward plunket his heir or assign into  all and singular the say demise premise and every part thereof to reenter and  the same to have again repossess and enjoy as in his or their first or former  estate any thing in the say brown deed contain to the contrary notwithstanding  to which indenture the say William shaw be a perfect party and by virtue  thereof enter upon and become possess of the premise Edward plunket die in  leave issue the say Christopher afterward Lord Dunsany and the appellant and  Lord Christopher die some time after without issue the appellant become  entitle to the equity of redemption of the premise in the appellant file a  bill in the court of chancery in Ireland against the say William shaw for a  redemption and a account of the profit of the say premise which bill shaw  answer and soon afterward leave Ireland but never return again in or William  shaw junior son of the say William shaw go into Ireland and he and his father  be sensible they have no right to the premise but under the say mortgage  William shaw junior by his father direction propose to give up the possession  to the appellant upon his pay the say sum of pound and confirm the lease which  have be make by William shaw senior which proposal the appellant do not come  into think it unreasonable but William shaw senior continue from time to time  to make fresh proposal to the appellant for end their difference amicable and  thereby hinder he from bring the say cause to a hear William shaw senior die  in before the dispute can be settle by any agreement leave the say William  shaw junior his son and heir who take out administration to his father with  his will annex William shaw junior die intestate in leave issue the respondent  and his mother Hester who take upon her to be his guardian and have take out  administration de good non with the will annex of William shaw senior enter  into and become possess of the say premise and receive the rend issue and  profit thereof on the that of April the appellant file his bill in the say  court of chancery against the respondent and Hester his mother pray a account  and redemption of the premise and on the that of September the respondent put  in his answer and plea to the say bill by his answer he set forth that the  appellant brown er p father exhibit such claim and be thereupon decree  innocent and to be restore to the land as in the bill mention and admit the  mortgage from the appellant father to the say William shaw but insist that the  say land and premise be seize and sequester on account of the rebellion which  break out in Ireland in and be vest in the crown by the act of settlement and  that king Charles two by his letter patent date the that of July in the that  year of his reign grant the premise to the say William shaw and that he hold  the same under that title without regard to the say mortgage and never have or  apply for any reprisal or satisfaction brown for the say land or his right  therein as a soldier and that be so in possession he by deed date the that of  June settle the say land on William shaw junior his old son in consideration  of pound as a marriage portion and of a marriage before have and solemnized  and pursuant to a agreement before marriage and as to such part of the bill as  seek relief and redemption and require he to convey his estate therein to the  appellant and to give he up the possession and to account with he for the  profit and to set forth the value of the premise he plead and insist on the  say letter patent from king Charles two to the say William shaw senior without  any save to any person whatsoever except the say Lord Patrick his heir and  assign and that there have be no reprisal set out in lieu and he also plead a  act of parliament make that William III entitle a act for confirm estate and  possession hold and enjoy under the act of settlement and explanation and the  aforesaid deed of settlement and the length of time this plea be argue on the  that of December when the Lord chancellor of Ireland be please to order the  same to be allow with cost to this order the appellant submit and so long  afterward as the that of February he file a replication to the respondent plea  but never think proper to proceed further in the cause till the year when he  bring the present appeal in support of which it be argue t Lutwyche W Hamilton  that Edward plunket have a decree of innocence pronounce for he and his claim  allow and possession order to be deliver to he several year before William  shaw pass the patent that there can be no strong acknowledgement or any clear  evidence of the appellant title to the land in question than shaw own  acceptance of a mortgage under it especial when by the respondent own  admission he appear to be a agent employ by the family in their affair that  though shaw by sue out the patent in his own name endeavour to defeat this  title yet it be apprehend that no estate thereby pass to he in the premise or  can be divest out of the appellant father because he be decree innocent and  because by the express word of the act of settlement it be provide that  nothing therein contain shall vest or be understand to vest in the crown any  land tenement or hereditament of any innocent papist or their innocent heir  that the mortgage be indefinite in its first creation and the term be for year  at S annual rend and redeemable at any time on payment of pound no subsequent  settlement or other disposition can discharge it from the condition it be  original make subject to without the act or concurrence of the mortgagor nor  consequent preclude his title of reentry and redemption upon perform that  condition and therefore the length of time ought not to be any plea or bar in  this case and as this mortgage be only a chattel real and not capable of be  entail it brown be conceive the respondent can derive no sort of interest to  it under the settlement allege to have be make upon his mother marriage he  have not therefore upon his own show the least colour for protect himself by  his plea as a purchaser for a valuable consideration that there be plain  notice at the time of the settlement for it be not in the least deny that shaw  the father who be privy to the whole affair have notice and more particular of  the mortgage to which he be a perfect party and if the father who be a party  to the settlement have notice that will be no notice to the son and the rest  claim under the settlement that if the appellant father have not claim and be  decree to the estate yet the title of Lord Patrick be particular provide for  by the clause insert in his favour in the act of settlement and explanation  the appellant will be entitle to be relieve as his heir at law especial when  it be consider that shaw by accept the brown er p mortgage and thereby  attorning to the appellant ancestor either admit or at least waive the benefit  of reprisal for if he have not Lord Patrick be absolute entitle to one three  part of his estate without any reprisal whatever and which for ought that can  appear to the contrary before the hear of the cause may comprehend the very  land in question beside the profit receive by shaw in his lifetime under the  mortgage will appear to exceed in value any reprisal he may otherwise have  pretend to neither be the statute rely upon by the plea any bar to the  appellant demand as it extend only to those case where the decree of innocence  leave the party afterward to take his remedy at law and not to any case where  the person decree innocent be in consequence of such decree restore to his  estate and the actual enjoyment of it and this plain appear to have be the  case of the appellant ancestor as there can not be a more effectual  acknowledgement of the right from any tenant in possession than what in the  present case the acceptance of a mortgage amount to last that the respondent  have overrate his plea by his answer he have first answer the bill to which he  plead which be contrary to the rule of a court of equity the same ought not  therefore to have be allow as a plea but at most ought only to have stand for  a answer and the benefit of it reserve to the hear on the other side it be  contend p York c Talbot that the respondent appear to be a purchaser of the  premise for a valuable consideration under the marriagesettlement of June  without any notice of the title now insist on by the appellant either to the  respondent father or mother or any other person whereby his right to the  premise can be affect which be a full bar to the appellant have any relief  against the respondent in a court of equity but if such bar do not stand in  the appellant way yet he appear to have no right to a redemption of the  premise by reason of Lord Patrick or Edward plunket not have grant any  reprisal accord to the term of the act of explanation and brown also by reason  of the act of the that of William III and of the length of time and continue  possession against his title for above year that the appellant by reply to the  plea so long ago as February have submit to the order for allow it and have  only put the truth of the fact therein contain in issue he ought therefore to  have proceed to examine witness to falsify the plea and to prove such notice  of his pretend equity previous to the settlement as may affect the respondent  title and if the plea have never be argue yet the appellant by reply to it  have admit it to be a good bar to the relief seek by the bill if the fact  allege therein and in the respondent answer be true it be therefore pray that  the order for allow the plea may be affirm accord after hear counsel on this  appeal it be order and adjudge that the same shall be dismiss and the order  therein complain of affirm jour vol p