case skip against Edward in chancery Trinity term if a take a joint bind from  b c and d and afterward accept the note of b and c in discharge of the bind  chancery will not afford a relief against d on the note not be pay d be a mere  surety and not have receive any part of the consideration money in the  plaintiff advance the sum of two thousand pound to two joint trader Hervey and  Wilcox upon their bind in which the defendant Mr Edward be a surety at the  expiration of a year Mr Edward grow uneasy insist upon the bond be pay off  that be may be clear and accord the two coobligors have afterward a meeting  with the plaintiff in order to discharge the same by way of payment they draw  two note upon different people Payable at a future day and also give he a  goldsmith note which it be on a Saturday night be make Payable the Monday  follow the plaintiff Mr skip deliver up his bind with a receipt endorse in  these word receive in note and cash the full content of this bind he at the  same time take a note from Hervey and Wilcox in these term the above note be  payment of we and Edward two thousand pound bind if any of the say note shall  modern report not be pay they shall be make good by we Hervey Wilcox and Mr  Edward name who be not privy to this transaction be likewise sign by Hervey it  appear that the person upon who one of the note be draw prove insolvent by  become a bankrupt before the day of payment the goldsmith note be also refuse  and the plaintiff Mr skip receive for answer that they have none of the drawer  money in their hand it have be all take out by Hervey the Saturday before  Hervey himself become a bankrupt and a commission be award against he the  Monday next after this matter be transact upon this the plaintiff bring his  bill against Edward the surety in the original bind pray that be may be liable  to pay the residue of the two thousand pound due thereon it have be fraudulent  procure from the plaintiff upon false pretence and it be argue by Mr Chute and  Mr clarke for the plaintiff that the note be only conditional payment and  though the bind be deliver up the debt be modern report er p retain salk clerk  v Mandell note Payable at a future day shall not be look upon as a discharge  of a precedent debt or contract they be all three principal in the original  bind and nothing have ever move from Mr Edward that can discharge he if it  have it will have alter the question and make the contract more doubtful  whether it shall interfere in behalf of the plaintiff to make the defendant  pay the debt twice over if the question have be whether the obligee or Mr  Edward shall suffer by hervey sink the money in that case the scale will  perhaps turn against the plaintiff but here the question be whether one man  shall be injure and another advantage by fraud and not whether one or other  shall be sufferer do the nature of this transaction import that such note  shall be receive in absolute discharge of a bind will anybody in their sense  accept of single note in discharge of a bind with three obligors there be  several case where acceptance of note Payable at a future day if no laches in  the party be no discharge salk ware v Evans it be to be consider whether Mr  Edward have not make himself party to the note give by Hervey and Wilcox ut  above for he have do nothing himself in discharge of the bind but be take  advantage of the transaction between they and the plaintiff and if he shall  not be bind by their note it will be make use of a act which they have do in  his name in one respect and not be bind by it in another we come before the  court in a very favourable light it be to be relieve against a fraud and all  we pray be to be reinstate into the same situation that we be before the fraud  commit Mr attorneygeneral and Mr solicitorgeneral for the defendant it be  agree that the plaintiff have no claim at law because the bind be cancel and  deliver up the question be whether he be entitle to relief in equity it must  be grant that there be some case where a bind may be cancel so as to modern  report defeat a claim at law and yet the plaintiff may be relieve in equity  and they on the other hand must allow likewise that in many instance the  extinguishment of the title at law be so likewise in this court the question  be which of these alternative the present case fall under in case of mere  accident as of a bind cancel by mistake burn or destroy by any misfortune or  deliver up by fraud the plaintiff will be entitle in this court but where a  person with his own eye open agree to alter the security and deliver up the  bind and no fraud commit on the part of the defendant it be sure otherwise Mr  Edward be only a surety no part of the considerationmoney pay to he and  therefore not necessary that anything shall move from he in discharge he never  look upon himself as bind any further than in law and therefore consider the  delivery up of the bind as a sufficient discharge and this will have prevent  he from take any further step against Hervey and Wilcox to secure himself  which he may have do if he have not rest easy beside the plaintiff do not come  with pure hand he have make Hervey guilty of forgery and a court of equity  will not permit such a clandestine note to bind a three person this be a fraud  intend by he to Edward in deliver up the bind and at the same time endeavour  to keep he bind by a clandestine note but a court of equity of all thing avoid  such underhand agreement Hardwicke Lord chancellor I have have some doubt  during the hear of the cause but be at last full satisfy that the plaintiff be  not entitle to relief it appear that the defendant be only a surety and have  be guilty of no fraud himself as to the general point there be no question but  there be many case in which a debt may be discharge but a court of equity will  set it up and that against the surety as well as the principal if a bind be  destroy by accident the surety be liable in this court as well as the  principal so if one of the principal shall procure the bind to be cancel by  fraud upon a bill this court will set up the bind against the surety as well  as the principal because a creditor shall not be prejudice by the fraud of one  of his debtor against the rest but the present case do not come up to any of  these for here be second security set up for the very purpose of discharge Mr  Edward and that with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff himself the  defendant do not at all appear in the transaction Hervey and Wilcox settle it  in their own manner and Mr skip be modern report er p leave to judge for  himself what kind of satisfaction he will take provide Edward be leave out be  may have refuse entire but instead of that he accept of two draft and a  goldsmith note c it be a very unusual thing for goldsmith note to be make two  day after the draft and therefore his accept of such a note from Hervey show a  confidence in he and the security which he give he Mr Edward do not think  proper to trust they any long but the plaintiff do and the rule of this court  be that be who trust most shall lose most suppose Mr skip have refuse to do  this and the bind have not be deliver modern report up Edward may have arrest  Hervey and Wilcox when he think proper and have take care of himself it be not  a right thing of Mr skip to accept the clandestine note for what be the scope  of the whole transaction it be that Mr Edward shall be discharge the take of  the note be therefore a deceit on Mr Edward by deliver the bind up and make he  believe he be discharge and at the same time endeavour private to continue he  bind by virtue of this note and this rebuts the fraud on the part of Hervey  with respect at least to the present defendant Mr Edward and therefore I be of  opinion upon the whole that the plaintiff be not entitle to relief there be no  fraud on the part of Mr Edward the nature and design of the transaction be to  discharge he the plaintiff be acquaint with this design and be at liberty to  make his own bargain he have think fit to change the security for one which  the defendant be not bind by but I do not think this so clear a case as to  dismiss the bill with cost