ambler case Le neve against Le neve S c wh t l c that ed see Bollandy heart l  r Ch vane v vane l r Ch n Agra bank Ltd v Barry l r h l Bradley v riches Ch d  distinguish greaves v Tofteld Ch d see Kettlewell v Watson Ch d Northern  county of England insurance company v whip Ch d manner v mew Ch d re Weir  Hollingworth v Willing lt land in a register county settle by a deed which be  not register be settle upon a second marriage with notice of the former  settlement and the second settlement be register pursuant to the statute that  whether the former settlement shall be prefer in equity notice to agent or  trustee be notice to principal No entry in l r S c atk Ves at Lincoln inn hall  Dec Lord Hardwicke chancellor the bill be bring by the plaintiff Peter Le neve  and Hugh Pigott and Elizabeth his wife late Elizabeth Le neve as the only  survive child of the defendant Edward Le neve by Henrietta his late wife the  end of the bill in general be to have the execution of trust of leasehold  estate settle upon the late wife of Edward Le neve and the issue of that  marriage by article previous to the marriage date saint July and that the  conveyance make by the defendant Edward Le neve and the defendant mary his now  wife to trustee may be set aside and deliver up be make after notice of the  article of the saint of July or of the other conveyance make in pursuance  thereof and to have the leasehold exonerate and disencumber the fact be that  in the defendant Edward Le neve intermarry with his first wife Henrietta Le  neve who have a considerable fortune and article be execute previous to the  marriage date the saint July whereby the father of Edward in consideration of  henrietta fortune c covenant with trustee to convey to they several estate and  some leasehold among the rest near soho square in the county of Middlesex to  permit Edward Le neve the young to receive the rend and profit during his own  life and after his death to pay to Henrietta pound ayear in case she survive  Edward and after the decease of Edward and Henrietta then the say estate shall  remain to their issue in such manner as Edward the young shall by will or  otherwise appoint and for want of such issue to the use of Edward Le neve the  father and his heir ambler the that June a settlement be make in pursuance of  the article the marriage take effect and Edward and Henrietta have issue  plaintiff Peter and Elizabeth Henrietta die July leave no other child  twentyfive year after the first marriage Edward Le neve enter into a treaty of  marriage with the defendant mary and by article date the that of November  previous to the marriage Edward in consideration of such marriage covenant  with the trustee the defendant Dandridge and Norton to convey these very  leasehold estate near soho square to they their executor c within three month  after the marriage in trust to pay to defendant mary out of the rend of these  message in case she survive he a clear annuity of pound for her life for her  jointure c the marriage take effect and three month after on the that January  a settlement be make pursuant to the article the settle estate be house in  Middlesex be subject to the register Act the that Q whether cap the second  article and settlement be register but not the first Edward have mortgage the  house likewise the bill be bring in order to set the second article and  settlement out of the way and that they may be postpone to the first article  and settlement upon this equity that the defendant mary Le neve have notice of  they the counsel for the plaintiff admit that the register of the second  article and settlement have in point of law affect the leasehold estate as the  that Q whether give the legal estate where the effect of the register have  place it ambler the question be whether equity will enable the child of the  first marriage ambler er p to get the better of the defendant legal right and  this will depend upon the question of notice saint whether it appear  sufficient that Joseph Norton be attorney for the defendant mary in the  transaction of her marriage dly whether Norton himself have sufficient notice  of the first article and settlement dly whether that will affect mary as a  purchaser and postpone her article and settlement notwithstanding the register  Act first it will depend on the answer of the defendant mary she have in  general deny any notice of the first article and settlement till six month  after the marriage and say that the defendant Joseph Norton be so far from be  employ as solicitor for her in transact the business of the marriage article  and settlement that he have be for a considerable time before employ as  attorney for the defendant Edward Le neve her husband that be at the time of  the marriage concern for her husband she be thereupon induce to place  confidence in he and her husband assure her he will take care there shall be a  handsome provision make for her and recommend Norton as a proper person to  prepare the deed whereby such settlement be to be make upon her to which she  consent and that Norton assure her that he have take care to secure for her  pound ayear by way of jointure and do not then or at any time before her  intend marriage give her any notice of any former settlement it be insist by  the defendant mary counsel that Joseph Norton be not her attorney or agent but  her husband and that the attorney for one party have notice will not affect  her with notice I be of opinion she have admit enough on her side to make he  attorney or agent for her if she place confidence ambler in Joseph Norton no  matter on who recommendation if she rely enough on her husband to take his  recommendation it be sufficient or otherwise it will be mischievous and  inconvenient if this court be to take into their consideration from who the  recommendation come for in purchase and more especial in mortgage very  frequent the same counsel and agent be employ on both side and therefore each  side be affect with notice as much as if different counsel and agent have be  employ it be material to see how far the case have go in this point two have  be cite Brotherton v hat vern and Jennings v more Blincorn and other vern S c  bro p g Eden tomb the first be short this a make three several mortgage to b c  and d and in the last mortgage b be a party and agree after he be pay he will  stand a trustee for d decree that c shall be pay before d for all the security  be transact by the same scrivener notice to he be notice to d see how far this  go the same scrivener be witness and engross all the security and be in nature  of agent for all the lender and very likely for the borrower himself and  notwithstanding it do not appear mrs hat find personal notice yet notice to  the agent be notice to the party and consequent they that lend last must come  last have notice of what be before lend and if any one after notice lend more  money although he shall obtain the legal estate yet he will in equity stand  affect with the notice and be bind thereby the second case be no more than  this Blincorne have notice of a encumbrance purchase in the name of more and  then agree that more shall be the purchaser and he accord pay the purchase  money without notice of the encumbrance though more do not employ Blincorne  nor know any thing of the purchase till after it be make yet more approve of  it afterward make Blincorne his agent ab beginning and therefore shall be  affect with the notice to Blincorne ambler the last go a great way for more  know nothing of the transaction and yet the court hold that his a prove it  afterward make Blincorne his agent ab beginning this carry it further than the  present case but the first be a clear authority these case therefore  sufficient prove it be not at all material to the plaintiff on who advice or  recommendation the defendant mary entrust Norton nor do it make any difference  that it be the recommendation of the husband any more than of any other person  second consideration be as it appear clear that Norton be employ for defendant  mary whether there be sufficient evidence of notice to he ambler er p a  objection have be take by defendant mary counsel that as notice have be deny  by her answer if it be swear to by one witness only that be but oath against  oath can prevail to establish the fact the general rule to be sure be so but  it admit of this distinction where the denial of defendant be clear it have be  adhere to but where the answer be not a positive denial of the same fact but  only as to part as in the present case as to the notice to herself only it  make a difference and there be many case where the court upon the testimony of  one witness who credit be unimpeached and what he swear be uncontradicted by  the answer have decree upon this single evidence the defendant mary deny  notice to herself but whether there be notice to another person her agent she  passes by without give any answer this be a denial in feed as to herself but  it be at the same time what be call at law a negative pregnant that there be  notice to her agent ambler as to the evidence of notice to note then it be  extreme strong for he swear that he have notice of the first article some time  before the second marriage and that he have then a copy thereof from the  defendant Edward Le neve in order to take counsel opinion thereon how to  secure against the effect of they and to contrive in what manner they may get  the better of these article and therefore as to Norton there can be a strong  notice the three and last general question be whether the notice to Norton  will affect the defendant mary as a purchaser and postpone her article and  settlement notwithstanding the register Act this depend on two thing saint  whether any notice whatsoever will be sufficient to take from the defendant  the benefit of the register Act d whether personal notice to the defendant  mary be requisite to postpone her or whether notice to her agent be sufficient  to do it likewise as to the saint it be a question of great extent and  consequence the preamble of the statute of the that Q whether ch be in  substance whereas by the different and secret way of convey land c such as be  illdisposed have it in their power to commit fraud and frequent do so by mean  whereof several person have be undo in their purchase and mortgage by prior  and secret conveyance and fraudulent encumbrance then come the enact clause  that a memorial of all deed and conveyance which after the that of September  shall be make and execute and of all will and devise in write whereby any  honour manor land c in the county of Middlesex may be any way affect in law or  equity may be register in such manner as be after direct and that every such  deed or conveyance that shall at a time after c be make and execute shall be  adjudge ambler fraudulent and void against any subsequent purchaser or  mortgagee for valuable consideration unless such memorial be register as by  this act be direct before the register of the memorial of the deed or  conveyance under which such subsequent purchaser or mortgagee shall claim c  what appear by the preamble to be the intention of the act plain to secure  subsequent purchaser and mortgagee against prior secret conveyance and  fraudulent encumbrance where a person have no notice of a prior conveyance  there the register his subsequent conveyance shall prevail against the prior  but if he have notice of a prior conveyance then that be not a secret  conveyance by which he can be prejudice the enact clause say that every such  deed shall be void against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee unless the  memorial thereof be register c that be it give he the legal estate but it do  not say that such subsequent purchaser be not leave open to any equity which a  prior purchaser or encumbrancer may have for he can be in no danger when he  know of another encumbrance because he may then have stop his hand from  proceed this case have be very proper compare to case on the that h for  enrolment of bargain and sale that act be form pretty much in the same manner  with this the word of the enact clause that from c no manor land tenement c  shall pass alter or change from one to another whereby any estate of  inheritance ambler er p or freehold shall be make or take effect in any person  or person or any use thereof to be make thereof by reason only of any bargain  and safe thereof except the same bargain and ambler sale be by write indent  seal and enrol in one of the king court of record at Westminster or else  within the same county c where the same manor c so bargain and sell do lie c  and the same enrolment to he have and make within six month next after the  date of the same write indent c nor any use shall pass thereof from one to  another what be the meaning of this before the make of the act any paper write  pass the use from the bargainor to the bargainee whereby great mischief arise  for it entangle the purchaser and injure the crown and be contrary to the rule  of law which require notoriety in purchase by feoff and livery c but what have  be the construction of this statute ever since why if a subsequent bargainee  have notice of a prior be be equal affect with that notice as if the prior  purchase have be a conveyance by feoff and livery c the operation of both act  of parliament and construction of they be the same and it will be a most  mischievous thing if a person take that advantage of the legal form appoint by  a act of parliament may under that protect himself against a person who have a  prior equity of which he have notice the case put by the attorneygeneral be  very material suppose say he the defendant mary have by letter of attorney  empower Norton to transact the affair with her husband and he by mean of this  agency come to the knowledge of the prior article and settlement will not this  affect the principal or suppose a purchaser of land in a register county order  his attorney to register it and be neglect to do it and then buy the estate  himself and register his own conveyance shall this be allow to prevail it  certain shall not for such a purchaser be out of the consequence which the  register act guard against of imposition ambler from a prior secret conveyance  as he have personal knowledge of the first there have be three case on the  register Act Lord Forbes v Nelson bro p c Edward Toml blade v blade Eq can Abr  pl chival v Nicholls that December in the exchequer stram the first arise  original in Ireland where there be a general register Act and hear on appeal  to the house of lord in England d and d February the earl of Granard father of  Lord Forbes be seize of a large estate of which he be tenant for life with  remainder to his first and every other son in tail and have a power of lease  for life at the best rend the register Act in Ireland pass the that Q whether  Lord Granard grant a lease for three life at the rend of pound ayear which be  not register his lordship be great in debt come to a agreement with Lord  Forbes his old son by the agency of Mr steward to take upon he the payment of  certain debt of his father and to secure a jointure to his motherinlaw and a  annuity to his father the estate be convey to Mr justice doyne and Mr justice  nut as trustee during the life of the father Mr steward have notice of this  lease during the treaty between Lord Granard and Lord Forbes the conveyance to  the trustee be register they bring a ejectment against the lessee of the  leasehold estate and it be hear before Lord Middleton Lord chancellor of  Ireland in February who then make a declaration rather than a decree that the  conveyance be ambler void as against the lessee it come on again before he the  that February and then determine there be full notice of the lease to Lord  Forbes and award a perpetual injunction from time to time the judgement of the  house of lord be that the say decree be reverse and that all proceed at law of  the appellant against the respondent shall during the life of Lord Granard be  stay on lessee pay the rend perform the covenant c but that after the death of  Lord Gianard Lord Forbes may be at liberty to try the tenant right to the  lease the decree be reverse not because Lord Middleton have proceed on a wrong  principle but have draw a wrong inference from it for Lord Forbes do not  insist ambler er p mere on the register but that the lease be make contrary to  the power and therefore the Lord chancellor of Ireland be mistake and wrong in  decree the lease to be good in every respect and the house of lord set the  decree right only as to this particular part that after the death of Lord  Granard the estate determine and therefore leave it open to Lord Forbes to  dispute whether it be a lease pursuant to the power but give no relief as to  the register Act the case of blade v blade come before Lord chancellor king d  may William blade in devise certain land to his wife for her life and after  her death to his nine child the wife enter but do not register the will the  heir at law mortgage the estate and have it register and upon a bill bring  against he deny notice of the will but it be prove in evidence that he have  notice and the court say that have notice of the first purchase though it be  not register bind he and that get his own purchase first register be a fraud  the design of those act be only to give party notice who may otherwise without  such registry be in danger of be impose on by a prior purchase or mortgage  which they be in no danger of when they have any notice thereof in any manner  though not by ambler the registry and that they will never suffer any Act of  parliament make to prevent fraud to be a protection to fraud and therefore  decree for plaintiff look upon the transaction between the heir at law and  mortgagee to be collusive I mention this not only as a material authority but  as determine by Lord king who we all know be as Willing to adhere to the  commonlaw as any judge that ever sit here the other case of Chivall v Nicholls  be in the court of December before Lord chief baron Gilbert and be a clear  relief against the register Act upon a equity of notice but the that or give  charge of fraudulent circumstance beside and therefore not so similar to the  present consider therefore what be the ground of all this and particular of  those case which go on the foundation of notice to the agent the ground of it  be plain this that the take of a legal estate after notice of a prior right  make a person mala fide purchaser and not that he be not a purchaser for a  valuable consideration in every other respect this be a species of fraud and  dolus evil itself for he know the first purchaser have the clear right of the  estate and after know that he take away the right of another person by get the  legal estate and this exact agree with the definition of the civil law of  dolus evil dig Libr title trick malum Servius ita definite machinationem  quandan of one another to catch causan cum other simulater cum other to put in  motion Labeo autem posse et without simulations id holy ut circumvenia posse  et without trick evil other holy other to make like as fanciunt who law of  this sort dissimulation dissembling to serve zealously et to look at well svan  well another and so ipse such definite trick malum be all men callidiatem  deceit machinationein ad to come around to trip decipienduni alteruin summon  Labeonis ending true be now if a person do not stop his hand but get the legal  estate when he know the right be in another to contrive skilfully ambler ad to  come around it be a maxim too in our law that fraud et dolus no one to be a  patron to withhold Vid   Rep Rep fraud or mala fides therefore it be the true  ground on which the court be govern in the case of notice and it be a  consequence of the decision of the former question that notice to the agent be  sufficient for if the ground be the fraud or mala fides of the party then it  be all one whether by the party himself or his agent still it be a machine ad  to come around and the put a copy of the first article and settlement into  Norton hand to take the opinion of counsel in what manner they can be set  aside be a contrivance to circumvent it have be say if this woman have be  impose on by her husband she instead of cheat have be cheat but then who ought  to suffer the person entrust a agent or a stranger who do not employ he he  certain who trust most ought to suffer most mrs hat the three mortgagee in the  case in vern mention before be impose on and so be more in the other case  report there clear impose on and yet if this be to be any excuse it will make  all the case of notice very precarious for it seldom happen but the agent have  impose on his principal and notwithstanding that the person trust ought to  suffer for his illplaced confidence ambler er p therefore in both respect as  agent and trustee notice to Joseph Norton be notice to defendant mary likewise  and as to the registry Act here be sufficient equity in the plaintiff to  postpone the second article and settlement notwithstanding those only have be  register and decree accord V Toulmin v steer mere Sheldon v Cox post seldon v  Cox Eden but such notice must be acquire in the same transaction Lowther v  Carlton atk Warwicky Warwick atk Worsleyy earl of scarbro atk heirn v mill Ves  see Hamiltoni royse Sch Lef Mountford v Scott mad it be however hold by Lord  Eldon in Mountford v Scott on appeal turner and Russ that the question whether  notice to a attorney in one transaction shall be notice to he in another must  in all case depend upon the circumstance Pember v Mathers bro c c Cranstown v  Johnson Ves Evans v Bicknell Ves peel v Armitage Ves cook v Clayworth Ves  saage v Brocksopp ib Dawson v Massey ba be so where the testimony of the  witness be support by collateral circumstance Walton v Hobbs atk janson v Rany  ib beech v Kennegal Ves only v walker atk east India company v Donald Ves  Biddulph v saint John Sch Lef mor Edenhdt v Jones Swanst Selden v Cox post S c  in bushel v bushel Sch Lef Biddulph v saint John Sch Lef Eyre v dolphin dam be  but in order to induce a court of equity to interfere with the igai right  acquire by registration notice must be clear and actual Wyatt v Barw Ves  Jolland v Stainbridge Ves Davis v earl of Strathmore Ves as to the question  whether registration be itself notice to subsequent purchaser see Morecook v  dickens post chandos v Brownlow ridgw p c in do v Alsop barn Ald it be decide  that although equity will not allow a party to take advantage of his deed be  register as against a prior unregistered conveyance of which he have notice  yet that at law it be otherwise there be a material difference between the  Irish and English registry act as by the former a absolute priority be express  give to the instrument first register see bushel v bushel Sch Lef Lutwiche v  Dunsany ib darcy v chamber ib Eyre v dolphin ba be pentland v Stokes ba be  Daly v Kelly dow p c