baker v wind November Mortgageredemption resist and mortgagee order to pay  cost S p smith v smith Cooper Ch Rep and see supplement p et vide Detillin v  gale Ves the father of the plaintiff mortgage a estate to the defendant and by  article they agree that upon be reimburse what he advance and pound over for  such improvement as he may possible make he shall reconvey but this clause be  not insert in the deed of conveyance the mortgagor upon account of his  creditor be Willing it shall appear as a purchase but by subsequent fact and  agreement it appear in proof that the defendant admit it to be a redeemable  estate and it have be refer to arbitrator who though they do not choose to  make a award yet be of opinion that he shall take the money and give up the  estate the mortgagors son within a year after he come of age but twelve year  after the transaction bring this bill to redeem for defendant it be insist  that he shall neither be redeem nor come to a account after so long a time  cite cottrel v purchase Tal Cas vesey senior Lord chancellor this be the  strong case that ever come before I for the decree a redemption where that  redemption be controvert and also to make the mortgagee who oppose it not only  lose but pay cost there be such a series of transaction in which it be  constant admit to be redeemable as it clear be the not insert the clause in  the deed be a imposition upon the mortgagor but the reason be that he be in  distress and therefore turn it into the shape of a purchase but still he mean  it as a security the value of the estate do not appear but if he as a friend  to the mortgagor think fit to take it as security he do it with his eye open  and the redemption can be prevent and wherever the court find such a clause as  this it adhere to it strict to prevent the equity of redemption from be  entangle to the prejudice of the mortgagor and the get a further sum of insert  upon a mere pretence for whether he improve or not which be in his election he  be to have the pound be a evidence of hardship put on he then sure twelve year  be not sufficient to bar a redemption but the present plaintiff be a minor all  that time which in case upon the statute of limitation be always deduct nor do  it rest as a thing undemanded and the opinion of the referee be the same as  will be decree here if ever therefore a mortgagee ought to pay cost it be in  this case reserve subsequent cost till the account be take vesey senior er p  sir Chaloner ogle v the representative of admiral haddock November bill for a  account and share of prize money dismiss the sum be certain and the remedy at  law against the prize agent supplement the bill be bring for a share of prize  money Lord chancellor I be sorry this case be bring before the court after a  acquiescence during the life of admiral haddock and in a case arise mere from  the bounty of the crown wherein the question be whether the claimant shall  take accord to the intent of the crown in give it or upon the construction of  the word in contradiction of that intent however if there be a clear right in  the plaintiff whether it arise original from bounty or from consideration he  must prevail therein I shall consider it under two head first in respect of  the merit and mere right of the plaintiff as against the defendant second in  respect of the remedy he have pursue for it vesey senior as to the first it  depend on the several act by the crown the proclamation June the declaration  June and the proclamation June shall apply my opinion and reason to the  reprisal take upon the first rupture with Spain before the declaration of war  publish because it must be admit that as to the produce of they the right of  the officer and seaman arise mere from the king bounty and have no relation to  the act of Geo not be in the nature of a execution of a power or the same as  if insert in the original act of parliament the two first instrument must be  take together in the word the first recite the act of Geo and then direct a  division of the prize and it be remarkable that in speak of the flagofficer  share it stop short but in give all the subsequent share it say to be equal  divide among they the second direct a distribution of prize take before the  war the property of which be vest in the king and so of those take after the  war till give away direct it to be pay to and among c in the same manner and  proportion as by the first if then the first be take into the second there  will be no absurdity in construe this to proceed from the king bounty that he  intend as to the share of the other officer c to bind himself that it shall be  equal divide but as to the flagofficer the proportion shall be leave to his  own judgement accord to their merit amount to the same as if the king have at  the head of his army say he give the whole plunder to his officer and soldier  be may give it accord to the merit as to the three instrument the first  question be whether the subject matter extend to the prize take under the  general letter of reprisal before the war the second suppose it do whether  those word have in construction any retrospect the three if so whether that  retrospect can affect the right of the party as to the first I be of opinion  it do extend thereto the intent of it be to prevent dispute and to settle the  right of the prize if this be to be consider as a explanatory proclamation  upon that in it consequent be so of the other in which refer to that in and  amount to the take in the word thereof but it be say these prize take before  war declare be not take from the enemy that be a refine distinction it be true  in general the letter of mark and reprisal make not bellum justice or a formal  war between prince but of late the war in England have general begin in that  manner and it be a low degree and kind of war for these general letter be for  general injury to the king subject which be the cause of war and differ from  particular letter of mark under which the prize take vesey senior become the  property of the person to who they be grant the under the general accrue to  the crown which be a proof that it be a kind of war but it mean now our enemy  so that it be in effect the same the subject matter then of the last  proclamation include the prize before the declaration of the war with Spain  but second if it have not a retrospect it will not take in the prize take  either before or after the declaration before the issue the proclamation I be  of opinion it be sufficient be it to extend to future case only why be the  word have be mention as well as shall be it be also to explain and settle and  all explanatory law relate to precedent case and it be in all case of prize  take which as the word beget mean take or to be take as to the three whether  they can have a retrospective effect that be operate in vesey senior er p the  case of prize take before the proclamation issue it be say that the right be  vest if the plaintiff can make out that right by the first declaration it be  out of the king power to settle the proportion or alter it but that depend on  the reason above the king not have exclude himself from declare the proportion  then as to the remedy there be no ground to come here for a account the sum be  certain and therefore no necessity to decree for the plaintiff if his right be  strong be a mere legal right which shall be recover at law for if it be a  right vest which can not be vary by the proclamation the determination in the  court of law have be that the assignee may maintain a action against the agent  of the capture for money have and receive to their use against the executor of  admiral haddock the plaintiff can come for he receive it not for the use of  the plaintiff but against the agent for pay it to a wrong hand the bill  therefore must be dismiss but not so clear as to give cost but I hope this  will not be follow with other case of this kind where there be a acquiescence  and take under the king bounty Reg lib b fol