CHAUMOND ROSCARRICK Esq against sergeant barton February may James Charles  Roscarrick on his marriage with Dorothy his wife settle the land in question  inter alian on himself for life remainder to Dorothy for life remainder to the  heir male of his own body he have issue Charles his first and the plaintiff  his second son and die Dorothy marry with one Greenvil and they enter on the  land in question as the jointure of Dorothy Charles the son novemb car by deed  fine and recovery for pound convey the land in question to Greenvil and his  wife to the use of Dorothy for life remainder to the use of Charles and his  heir till he fail to pay several sum at several day amount to pound and after  default of payment of any sum to Greenvil and his heir case in chancery  afterward car Charles on his own marriage settle the land in question inter  alian to himself for life remainder to Margaret his wife for life remainder to  his first and other son in tail remainder to the plaintiff in tail in Greenvil  assign his estate which be for the security of the pound and be forfeit to the  defendant by the consent of Charles in upon a bill exhibit by the defendant in  chancery against Charles it be decree Charles shall pay the case in chancery  er p defendant what be due to he videlicet pound or the now defendant  plaintiff in that Cause to hold against Charles and all claim under he Charles  die without issue male Dorothy life till then the now plaintiff exhibit his  bill to redeem and allege that the decree against Charles be by consent and  that it be agree between Charles and the defendant that notwithstanding the  decree it shall be still a mortgage in the defendant hand and be redeemable  upon payment of principal and interest and however that the plaintiff be no  party to that decree and Charles but tenant for life that decree can not bind  the plaintiff and as to the pretence of a agreement between Charles and the  defendant that notwithstanding the decree the estate shall remain still a  mortgage in the defendant hand there be no proof of any such agreement or  consent but only tell Charles he will come to a account but there be deal and  account between the defendant and Charles it be declare by the Lord keeper who  first hear this Cause in July that general word not particular apply ought not  to shake a decree for if they do there will be no end of suit but then it be  insist for the plaintiff that he be no party to the decree be not bind thereby  and that he have a equity to redeem and that the mortgage be not to be take to  be more ancient than from the time of the assignment to the defendant for that  a account be then state with Greenvil and he pay off there be no account to be  precedent to that and so can not be take to be elder than and that so the  plaintiff ought to be admit to redeem and the rather for that the defendant  have notice which be admit of the deed car by which the plaintiff claim before  he take the conveyance from Greenvil and whether the plaintiff shall redeem  the Lord keeper doubt but take time to consider case in chancery and now Feb  this Cause be final hear before the Lord keeper assist with chief justice hale  Mr justice wile and baron Wyndham it be insist for the defendant the plaintiff  be no party to the deed of the mortgage and that the deed of car by which the  plaintiff Chaumond claim howbeit it be make in consideration of Charles his  marriage be to Chaumond the plaintiff pure voluntary and that albeit a  voluntary conveyance will pass a equity of redemption yet in this case where  the plaintiff claim a equity by way of tail it ought not to be countenance in  equity for that the consequence of it will be to make a equity of redemption  perpetual if a mortgagor after a mortgage make may make himself tenant for  life of that equity with remainder in tail as here remainder for life c which  be but a right of action a right to a bill in equity ought not to be so entail  and that this be not such a inheritance as be entail by the statute de gift c  but be a right of action vest in the father with remainder to his first and  other son before Chaumond there be no need to have make Chaumond defendant to  the say decree and Dorothy who be the tenant for life live till so that the  mortgage be all that time but of a dry reversion and Margaret the wife of  Charles who live until very late and who have a Title of redemption precedent  to the plaintiff do not seek to redeem Wyndham be of opinion as this case be  that the plaintiff ought not to be admit to redeem judge wile there be no  fraud in the settlement car and a decree against tenant for life will not bind  he in the remainder in the case of a estate at law and he do not see why it  shall bind in equity and so he conceive the plaintiff be relievable chief  justice hale by the growth of equity on equity the heart of the commonlaw be  eat out and legal Settlements be destroy and be of opinion there be no colour  of a decree in r the parliament will not admit of redemption but now there be  another settle course as far as the line be give man will go and if a hundred  year be give man will go so far and we know not whither we shall a equity of  redemption be transferable from one to another now a d yet at commonlaw if he  that have the equity make a feoff or levy case in chancery a fine he have  extinguish his equity at law and it have go far enough already and we will go  no further than precedent in the matter of equity of redemption which have too  much favour already and conclude there shall be no decree for the plaintiff in  respect of the antiquity and if he will redeem he must come in time it be but  just to foreclose for not come in time it be just to deny redemption case in  chancery er p if he come not in time and a decree to foreclose a tenant in  tail shall bind his issue in a equity of redemption because that be a right  set up only in a court of equity and so may be here extinguish and the estate  move from Charles to the mortgagee and not from the plaintiff and Charles be  the visible possessor and owner and it be a great sore that mortgagee be but  bailiff and the limitation to Chaumond be but voluntary and so the plaintiff  pretence be not to be support against a purchaser for so a mortgagee be and  here it be make absolute by the decree and if there be diverse remainder of  the equity there be no reason to make they all party the Lord keeper concur  with he and say he it go current that if a mortgage be twenty year old the  mortgagee shall have no interest on interest but herein he be not satisfy  especial in this case where the defendant can not get into possession by  reason of the estate for life to Dorothy who live till and be clear of opinion  that the plaintiff ought not to be admit to redeem and make great difference  between party that come to redeem who be no party to the mortgage and those  that be party to the mortgage and so the bill be dismiss