case mary fillip versus Constantius fillip alias MUILMENT November the court  make a order to refer to a master the affidavit of the plaintiff own solicitor  for impertinence Mr Evans on behalf of Constantia Philips move to refer to the  master to who the cause stand refer the affidavit of her solicitor for  impertinence it be full of Constantia fillip go to masquerade and ball and be  make in the course of the inquiry before the master about his bill of cost  atkins Mr baron clark sit for Lord chancellor seem to doubt whether it can be  do but Mr Evans inform he that there have be such motion Mr baron clark ask  the register Mr Rainsford what be the practice who say there have be such  order and upon that Mr baron clark direct it accord Reg lib b fol Worsley v  earl of Scarborough atkins er report date case Worsley versus the earl of  scarborough November see full v benett hare price v price Ch d a decree be not  a imply notice to a purchaser after the cause be end but it be the pendency of  the suit that create the notice for as it be a transaction in a sovereign  court of justice it be suppose all people be attentive to what passes there  vide sorrel v carpenter p W Garth v ware ante atk vol notice to a agent or  counsel who be employ in the thing by another person or in another business  and at another time be no notice to his client who employ he afterward Lord  chancellor say that where a sum of money in trust be already lie out upon a  real security and afterward the say sum be lie out by the trustee upon another  estate it be a very different case and stand upon very different principle  than where a sum of money be intend to continue as it be in the hand of  trustee and they lie out that sum in the purchase of a estate because here the  nature of the property be alter and it be become quite another thing but in  the former case the nature of the property be the same and continue unaltered  though it be transfer to another estate so wait v whorwood ante vol vide rial  versus rial February Tr atk atkins er p second that there be no such doctrine  in this court that a decree make here shall be a imply notice to a purchaser  after the cause be end but it be the pendency of the suit that create the  notice for as it be a transaction in a sovereign court of justice it be  suppose all people be attentive to what passes there and it be to prevent a  great mischief that will arise by people purchase a right under litigation and  then in contest but where it be only a decree to account and not such a one as  put a conclusion to the matter in question that be still such a suit as do  affect people with notice of what be do three No case have go so far and it  will be very inconvenient if where money be secure upon a estate and there be  a question depend in this court upon the right of or about that money but no  question relate to the estate upon which it be secure but be whole a  collateral matter that a purchaser of the estate pen that suit shall be affect  with notice by such implication as the law create by the pendency of a suit  fourthly it be settle that notice to a agent or counsel who be employ in the  thing by another person or in another business and at another time be no  notice to his client who employ he in afterward and it will be very  mischievous if it be so for the man of most practice and great eminence will  then be the most dangerous to employ so Lowther v Carlton ante atk vol Warrick  v Warrick ante atk but see Le neve v Le neve post atk