case luck versus bridge and christy Eq Abr c S c wms vide infra scrivener or  attorney put out his client money on a security which he may on the least  inquiry have find to be defective or even where he have notice of ejectment  deliver on a prior mortgage yet can not be charge in equity to answer the  money Mr Thomas Christy to who the defendant Christy and other be executor  have be a considerable practice attorney and be brotherinlaw to the plaintiff  precedent in chancery er p Luke who have pound out at interest and the same be  to be pay in desire it may be pay to her brotherinlaw Mr Christy and that he  will get her a security for it accord the money be pay in to he and he without  any further direction from the plaintiff or acquaint her at all of the matter  precedent in chancery in march lend it out on a security of a mortgage make by  sir Charles Bickerstaff to one Mr Robert Marsham for secure pound which  afterward be increase to pound and be by he assign to the defendant bridge for  secure that sum and the assignment be take in the name of the plaintiff and  she have some of the title deed deliver to her and receive of the interest  from sir Charles Bickerstaff but it fall out that the security be  praeincumbered and will not answer the money the plaintiff bring this bill to  have the money make good to her either by the executor of her brotherinlaw who  have put out the money or by Mr bridge who have the security before upon a  reassignment and have long before bring a bill against sir Charles Bickerstaff  to have the redemption foreclose and a decree have be obtain by sale of the  estate and Mr Hungerford have be allow the best purchaser for pound thereupon  Mr bridge arrest sir Charles upon his bind and he be in prison in the fleet  and afterward he to procure his enlargement pay Mr bridge pound and there  remain due to Mr bridge at the time of his assignment only pound for principal  interest and cost and yet the assignment be make in consideration of pound  mention to be pay to he and he accord have a bill for pound upon sir John  Johnson the goldsmith deliver to he which be a fraud in he and he conceal all  these matter from Mr Christy and assign this as a good security it be urge  that this be a fraud and the reason insist upon and prove by the plaintiff for  relief against the defendant bridge be that be after the security assign to he  have join with the mortgagor in sell part of the mortgage premise which as be  allege be the best part of the security and at the time when he assign the  security to the plaintiff know it to be bad and therefore he ought to take  back the security and answer the money precedent in chancery as against Mr  Christy it be allege that he by receive the plaintiff pound become debtor to  her for so much and his put of it out on this security without so much as  acquaint her or her friend or advice with her counsel can not discharge he of  the demand she have against he for the say pound that if he be not guilty of a  fraud in that matter yet he be guilty of a gross neglect not to inquire into  the circumstance of sir Charles who then owe pound upon statute judgement c  which may have be find out if inquire after that he himself be so satisfy of  his faultiness in the case that he have declare he think himself oblige in  conscience to make her satisfaction and that he will do so as be full prove in  the cause and willing non fit in an unjust manner and he have leave a great  estate and no debt or child and have by his will only leave the plaintiff a  annuity of pound per and to commence after the death of his wife it be answer  on behalf of Mr bridge that as for the assignment be make in consideration of  pound pay to he whereas so much be not due to he it be so do by the desire of  sir Charles Bickerstaff and though the bill for the whole pound be make  Payable to he yet he have only receive so much as be due to he and sir Charles  have the rest that he have be deceive in the mortgage and take a ill security  may just get rid of it as he can and have obligation to discover the badness  of the security which will have prevent his ever part with it therefore he  have be guilty of no fraud there be no reason to charge he with any part of  the money or to force he to take back the security it be say for Mr Christy  that there be no fraud in he that he have receive and put out the money at the  plaintiff desire that he have transact the security mere out of friendship to  her and without any reward from any body and ought not to be answerable for  the misfortune and that to charge precedent in chancery he will be to destroy  all commerce in relation to security for no one will venture to put another  money upon a security if he be oblige to warrant and make it good in case a  loss shall happen without any fraud in he that though the plaintiff have not  be acquaint with this security beforehand yet she have give he direction in  general to put out the money and approve it after by take the deed and receive  the interest and have petition the house of Commons against Mr Philip  Bickerstaff who be a member of that house and bind with his brother sir  Charles in the bind for performance of covenant that what he say of think  himself bind in conscience precedent in chancery er p to make her satisfaction  be only expression of great concern for the plaintiff misfortune but can not  in any court of law or equity oblige he to make her any reparation who have do  her no wrong nor do she set up any such pretence during his lifetime though he  live five year after the money lend and he have by his will give pound per and  after the death of his wife and several other considerable legacy to the  family which he have no obligation to have do my Lord keeper say he do not  think that either Mr Christy or Mr bridge have do altogether what in natural  justice they ought to have do yet that there be no sufficient foundation to  charge either of they in equity he cite the case of sir John Foach the  scrivener upon the mortgage of Mr Jervis where though sir John have notice of  declaration in ejectment deliver on a prior mortgage before he lend his client  money yet can not be charge to make good to his client the money he afterward  lend upon it so he dismiss the bill without cost and this decree be afterward  affirm in the house of lord