case Rakestraw all versus BRUYER at the chancellor house Lord chancellor S c  Eq Cas Abr p wms see rajah Kishendatt ram v rajah Muntez Ali Khan lr ind App  kinsman v rouse Ch d l I Ch lt WR leigh v Burnett Ch d see also on point of  lapse of time statute of limitation wm c S Sel Cas in cane dispute in the  society of law be to be determine by the bencher and the court of equity will  not interpose Mr attorneygeneral for the defendant this bill be bring by the  plaintiff and their wife the daughter of the late Mr Holford decease to redeem  three set of chamber in grey inn for a account of the profit and the benefit  of a renewal of the term and the chief question be whether this estate be  redeemable Mr Holford in mortgage these chamber for pound to Mr atwood and in  the mortgage be assign to the defendant Mr Bruyer but Mr Holford not be a  party to that assignment it be not in the nature of a new mortgage on the that  of November Mr Bruyer apply to the bencher at a pension for relief and on the  that they make a order that Mr Holford shall account and pay what be due on  the say mortgage or they will proceed against he as they see cause and another  order be make with the consent of Mr Holford whereby it be order that Mr  Holford shall pay off the principal and interest and the duty of the house and  Mr Bruyer assign the mortgage or that he shall deliver possession of the  chamber Mr Holford do not pay the money but in deliver possession only of two  of the set of chamber and continue in possession of the other till the time of  his death in the plaintiff do not prove his will till the year though they  come of age in which prevent we from bring a bill of foreclosure against the  representative of Mr Holford in Mr Bruyer obtain a renewal from the house upon  which in the plaintiff file this bill but we think the length of time be a bar  to their title the order of pension to deliver possession be in and possession  of two chamber be accord deliver in so that from that time to the fill of the  bill we be two and twenty year in quiet possession and the time be begin in  the father lifetime will run upon the plaintiff though they be infant and if  this court will dismiss the mortgagors bill to redeem the fee if the mortgagee  have be in quiet possession for twenty year though the equity of redemption be  as valuable at the end of those year as at the beginning it will much soon do  it where a term only which be a waste security be mortgage after such a length  of time mosely report and the death of the party it be difficult to make up a  strict mosely report er p account to set out the loss by tenant and a  mortgagee be not to be make a bailiff for ever to the mortgagor the other  chamber he die in possession of may perhaps admit of another consideration but  they be not worth redeem because we have not renew the lease of they and these  bill be not allow by court of equity to interrupt the repose and ease of these  society of law and though the bencher in this case have consent to give up  their right as a ejectment or a bill of foreclosure will not lie for these  chamber so neither will a bill to redeem for the remedy ought to be mutual a  bill of foreclosure be to bar the mortgagor of all right in equity to the  estate which by law be already in the mortgagee but the legal estate of these  chamber be in the society and the bencher who grant they out be only their  trustee but allow the plaintiff may redeem they be not entitle to the benefit  of the renewal for where a renewable lease be mortgage and the mortgagee renew  the only foundation the court have go upon to give the mortgagor the benefit  of this renewal be the tenant right but the chamber here be not renew to  Bruyer as a mortgagee but as a bencher and the renewal be design as a personal  kindness to he and the plaintiff wife can not have renew though these chamber  have not be in mortgage because by the rule of the society the bencher can  grant lease only to their own member Lord chancellor to prevent dispute in  these society of law all controversy concern chamber ought to be determine by  the bencher and Lord keeper wright refuse to relieve the plaintiff on a bill  bring to redeem chamber but the bencher in this case desire the party to  resort to a court of equity and waive determine the question themselves this  term for year in the chamber spring out of the estate of the trustee which in  equity must be consider as a legal interest here then be a lease of chamber  with a power of renewal mortgage and assign to the defendant and a conditional  order of pension for the possession which can be consider as a sale or  foreclosure but the estate be still to be consider as a mortgage this order be  not comply with but Mr Holford continue in possession of part so no time run  against he for it must for all the estate in mortgage or for no part and no  time begin till his death in when the mosely report plaintiff be infant and  continue so till I think it reasonable where a mortgagee continue in quiet  possession for twenty year that the mortgagor shall not be let into a  redemption but the plaintiff be in time and therefore may redeem not only the  mortgage term but every thing excrescent for the additional term be grant to  the defendant only by virtue of his first term and eleven year be add express  to make up the remainder of the first term twentyone year so if the defendant  be allow what he pay for the renewal no injury be do he and though the  plaintiff be not capable of a original grant of these chamber yet if they come  to they by representation they may assign they to a member and the society  will renew to he and therefore the decree of the master of the roll that the  plaintiff may redeem and be to have the benefit of the renewal must be affirm  Chan Cas vern Tuesday July the that motion