made parties; and it was charged, that it was agreed between Sir Thomas and appellant that Edward's rent should be discounted out of the interest of the mortgage; which bill appellant answered, and denied any such agreement; and the cause abated by the inter-marriage of respondents in January, 1689. And 3d June, 1692, respondents, by Sir Robert Cotton, their next friend, brought their bill of revivor against appellant and others; and appellant exhibited his cross bill to be paid his mortgage monies, and to have allowance for several goods left by him with Sir Thomas Lynch at the sale of the estate: And, 6th December, 1694, bath causes were heard; and it was decreed that the Master should take an account of what was due from respondents to appellant, and compute interest for the principal money to be found due on the mortgage, and tax appellant his costs in respect of the said mortgage; [87] which principal interest and costs were decreed to be paid to appellant at such time and place as the Master should appoint; but no order was made, or direction given for discounting the rent out of, or against the interest of the mortgage money; which decree was afterwards duly signed and enrolled: And, 13th November, 1696, the Master reported 7664l. 10s. 9½d. due to appellant on the mortgage, and appointed the same to be paid 26th day of the same November. But the Master further took on him to certify this special matter, viz. that respondents, Cottons, insisted that appellant being bound with his brother in the 2000l. bond, the rent ought to be applied towards sinking the interest of the mortgage, although Edward Doughty, who was made a party to the original bill, did not answer, nor was he in any manner a party at the hearing; and respondents, Cottons, having taken exceptions to the report, the same, together with the special matter, came to be heard, 10th March 1696, and it was referred back to the Master to certify how long Edward Doughty held the farm, what rent appellant had, or without his wilful default might have received out of the farm; and that the same should be brought into the account towards discharging appellant's interest money: And, 27th July, 1697, the Master made his second report, that Edward held the farm till September, 1684, and that he suffered damage by stoppage of the water above the usual mark for the use of the mills 50l. a year, and that Edward assigned to Gosling, who held the same as agent to appellant, and leased part to the Earl of Torrington at 50l. a year, and that there was due to the respondents for nine years, without deductions for taxes, boots, &c. 2205l. and that respondent Philadelphia had before her marriage held part of the farm: To which report both appellant and respondents took exceptions, and appellant having obtained an order for re-hearing the special matter of the former report, the same, together with the exceptions, came on to be heard 10th March, 1697, and it was ordered that the appellant should stand in the place of Edward, and be allowed such deductions only as Edward was to have by the lease, and that the rent should be applied to sink the interest. And Edward Doughty being liable to appellant by the counter bond of 4000l. exhibited his bill in Chancery against respondents, the Earl of Torrington and appellant; to which the appellant and [88] respondents answered, but the Earl never answered. This cause was heard, and the Court declared it was plain that Edward was only a nominal plaintiff, and his name used by appellant to bring about the account again, and the respondents then offering to take no advantage of the 2000l. bond against Edward, it was ordered that all proceedings at law against Edward upon that bond be stayed till after the account taken in the other cause, and the Master was to tax the respondents their costs of that suit, to be paid by appellant, and respondents to have liberty to make use of Edward's name for recovery thereof; and decreed a perpetual injunction to stay appellant's proceedings against Edward on the 4000l. bond. And from the several orders, decrees, and proceedings, (since the decree of 6th December, 1694) as being erroneous, and against equity, appellant appealed to the Lords, and insisted that the order that appellant should stand in the place of Edward, and that the rent, after all deductions according to the lease, should be applied to sink the interest of the mortgage, altered the decree of the 6th December, 1694, in its very substance without a re-hearing of the cause, and after the decree was signed and inrolled; and if a decree, duly signed and inrolled, may be varied by such a mean, it may be varied toties quoties, and would infringe the Lord's jurisdiction in appeals: And appellant insisted that the alteration in the decree was against equity, there being
194
