case roberts all versus matthews all eoden die in court Lord keeper scrivener  put out money on bind and receive the interest from time to time and then  receive part of the principal the bind remain in the oblige custody No good  payment the case be the defendant matthews employ one smith a scrivener to  place out pound for he at interest which the scrivener do to the plaintiff and  take the plaintiff bind for it in the defendant name and about three month  afterward deliver the bind to the defendant plaintiff Robert all along pay his  interest to the scrivener and about five year after the enter into this bind  the scrivener call upon he for the principal he pay pound it be swear by the  defendant answer that the interest of the money lend be constant answer to he  for several year after the time state in the bill for the payment of the pound  to smith and endorse by he the defendant on the bind and that he be not privy  to the payment nor have authorize smith to receive the pound r l of it and the  scrivener not have the bind in his custody give the plaintiff a receipt for  pound receive in part for the use of the defendant matthews adjudge this be a  void payment for the bind be in the custody of the defendant matthews and not  in the scrivener the plaintiff ought to have see his money endorse on the bind  and though this alone be enough to make it a ill payment yet this case be the  strong for that the plaintiff be not ignorant who money it be the receipt he  take for the payment of the pound be for the use of the defendant and many  precedent be cite to the same purpose this be decree on a rehear before Lord  keeper together with cost at law and in this court the defendant have swear  the bind to be in his custody at the time of payment of the pound it lie on  the plaintiff to prove the same to be in smith hand or otherwise that he have  authority to receive the pound which have not be do Reg lib b fol Trin term it  be the rule of the court that if the scrivener have the custody of the  security payment of the interest be good if he deliver it up be a bind payment  of the principal be good but where payment of the principal in case of a  mortgage deed the give up the deed be not sufficient to restore the estate  there must be a reconveyance so payment of interest good if mortgagee consent  or after his death his executor either express or by implication as if he  accept the money afterward of the scrivener though the scrivener have not  possession either of deed or bind Whitlock v Waltham salk so Martin v Kingsley  pre Chan sir John Woolstenholme v Davis Freem but payment though to one who  usual receive oblige money yet who have not the bind do not discharge the  obligor Gerrard v baker cite in Henn v Conisby Ch can et vide Henn v Conisby  ibidem p Eq can ab degg v Osbaston ibidem both which be case of mortgage and  the mortgagee decree to take the principal without interest and a year give  for the payment duchess of Cleveland v executor of Dashwood Freem Rep where  Lord keeper and master of the roll differ in opinion on the distinction in  equity between the deliver up the deed and bind on payment of the money above  mention but the case not decide on that point if obligor compound with  scrivener for less than be due it be a evidence of fraud and then it may be  the obligor may pay the money again pen v brown ibidem pl et vide vin ab vol p  title payt c so where bind give to trustee of feme covert the feme keep the  bind and payment make to one of the trustee and receipt take and no notice to  beneficiary and trust not a good payment Baldwin v Billingsley post vol nor to  the obligee after notice of assignment of the bind such dict ibidem so a  agreement make by scrivener to compound debt due to his principal shall not  discharge the debtor as to the principal though the scrivener shall indemnify  the debtor parrot v well post vol say qure where bind and judgement and on  money pay bind alone deliver up to debtor Stafford v Southwick post vol et  vide Pritchard v Langher post vol Vernon chancery case er p