atkins case Mellor versus lees February rehear see Bulwer v Astley Ph the  plaintiff grandfather in mortgage the estate in question to the Whiteheads  they afterward mortgage it to Cartwright and Heywood and their heir for pound  who to secure the interest lease the estate to the plaintiff father in June  and to his assign for year at pound ayear rend for the three first year and  pound ayear rend for the remainder of the term and if at three year end the  pound be pay and interest then the premise be to be reconvey receipt give  sometime for interest and sometime for a rend charge the last in the pound  lend be charitymoney direct to be lie out in the purchase of land in fee and  the rend to be apply for cloth needy housekeeper in the plaintiff give notice  he will pay in the money but the defendant refuse to take it and insist it be  a absolute purchase and so decree by the master of the roll and on appeal Lord  Hardwicke be of the same opinion affirm the decree this case come before the  chancellor upon a appeal from the roll a mortgage be make of a estate by the  plaintiff grandfather Thomas Mellor in to John and James Whitehead the  whitehead afterward on the that of June mortgage the same estate to Cartwright  and John Heywood and their heir for secure pound to which Thomas and his son  John Mellor be party and Cartwright and Heywood in order to secure to  themselves the interest make a lease to the plaintiff father John Mellor date  the that of June and to his assign for year at the rend of twelve pound ayear  for the three first year and ten pound ayear for the remainder of the term and  if in the space of three year the pound be pay and the interest then the  premise be to be reconvey receipt have be give since sometime for interest and  sometime for a rentcharge the last receipt be in the pound lend be money leave  under one sutton will in and direct to be lie out in the purchase of land in  fee in Lancashire or Cheshire and the rend of it when purchase to be apply  towards cloth age and needy housekeeper the plaintiff the that of January give  notice that he will pay in the money but the defendant a new trustee of the  charity refuse to take it and insist upon it as a absolute purchase and be so  decree by the master of the roll William fortescue esquire the estate at the  time of the mortgage be worth pound only but will sell now for pound Lord  chancellor to be sure the rule of this court relate to mortgage ought to be  adhere to that borrower of money may not be oppress atkins there be two  general questins in the present case first as to the contract whether it be a  transaction that be in its nature a mortgage or a defeasible purchase and  subject to a repurchase second if original intend as a mortgage whether length  of time will not be a bar to redeem atkins er p as to the first there be a  difference between such a agreement as this which relate to a rentcharge issue  out of land and a agreement which relate to the land itself so likewise the  case of create a rentcharge out of land and mortgage a rentcharge be of  different consideration where a man take a mortgage it be not bare adequate to  the payment of the interest or even to a perpetual payment of the interest but  general the estate be double the value of the principal money lend if indeed  any fetter have be lie upon redeem the mortgage estate by some original  agreement either in the mortgage deed or a separate deed it will not avail  where it be do with a design to wrest the estate fraudulent out of the hand of  the mortgagor but where be the fraud or the inconvenience in the present case  the land itself be not part with but it be mere sell a rentcharge strict  adequate to the consideration give the pound and instead of have a chance for  the whole estate the lender of the money be content to buy the interest for  ever by way of rentcharge I have say thus much in general and now come to the  particular circumstance in this case from the agreement and from the article  themselves in it appear plain to be the intention of the party that after the  end of the three year the interest shall be change into a rentcharge and be  irredeemable the objection be that the court will not permit a clause in the  same deed or in another which shall fetter the redemption and the observation  be very right when apply to the case of a common mortgage atkins but what have  be say by the defendant counsel with regard to the charity be very material  not that I will lie down a general rule with regard to all charity money lend  on mortgage for here a sum of pound be leave by one Sutton which be not to be  lie out at interest but to be invest in land in feesimple so that the trustee  of this charity be under a inability of treat in the common way have put it in  this method and it be the will itself that have lie a foundation for transact  it in this manner and have deliver the defendant from the suggestion of  oppression and imposition it be material in the present case that here be no  covenant in the deed for the repayment of the mortgage money which show a  plain intention of purchase a rentcharge in general indeed this be no rule  against redemptions in common and ordinary case though there be no such  covenant king v king p W ante vol contra pre Chan Lawley v Hooper post but  here it be explanatory of the whole scheme and intention of the party the  agreement be to take a rentcharge at the rate only of per cent which be  extreme fair consider the interest of money keep up long after at per cent  Floyer and Lavington p wms be the only case that come near the present Bonham  versus Newcomb vent go upon a different reason and be a exception out of the  general rule one for pound consideration grant a rentcharge of pound ayear in  fee upon condition that if the grantor during his life shall give notice and  pay in the pound by instalment videlicet pound at the end of every six month  and shall do this during his own lifetime then the grant to be void the  mortgage be make about sixty year since when the legal interest of money be r  cent Lord chancellor Cowper be of opinion the rentcharge be not redeemable and  decree the bill for a redemption shall be dismiss Floyer versus Lavington p  wms I do not single find my opinion upon the nature of the contract in the  principal case but on the great length of time for this bill be bring at the  distance of year and though it be very true that the court will not suffer a  common and plain mortgage to be redeem where the mortgagee have be in  perception of the rend and profit for a considerable time aggas v Pickeril  post because it will be make the mortgagee a bailiff vide ante to the  mortgagor and subject to a account yet in this case of a rentcharge there will  be no such inconvenience for the person may easy account atkins but consider  how much the value of money be alter since and likewise the value of the  rentcharge for if the purchaser be to reconvey his rentcharge now in he can  not possible purchase another with the pound that will produce more than ayear  therefore if the person who have a right to redeem bad come soon something  more may have be say there be still another reason that it will make property  precarious for if after the three year it become a absolute estate then it be  a freehold and will be convey as such vide Ves if consider as a redeemable  interest then it atkins er p be only personal estate vide har   Litt b note  this will create great confusion and render it very difficult for person  either to dispose of their property or to settle what kind of conveyance be  proper therefore this bill have be proper dismiss at the roll not so much upon  general rule as upon the particular circumstance of the case and upon the  likeness there be between this and the case of Floyer versus Lavington his  lordship affirm the decree but give no cost on either side as the bill be  dismiss at the roll Reg lib b fol and that decree affirm upon the rehear the  state of the case do not appear in Reg lib foe