Again,  in  Wallwyn  v.  Lee,^  a  tenant  in  tail,  in
possession  under  a  marriage  settlement,  filed  a  bill
for  discovery  and  delivery  up  of  the  title-deeds  of
an  estate  which  had  been  mortgaged  by  his  father,
who  was  tenant  for  life  under  a  settlement  and  a
private  Act  of  Parliament.  The  defendant  pleaded
that  the  plaintiff's  father,  alleging  himself  to  be
seized  in  fee,  and  being  in  actual  possession  of  the
premises  as  apparent  fee-simple  owner,  and  being
also  in  possession  of  the  title-deeds  relating  thereto
as  apparent  fee-simple  owner  thereof,  executed  the


Wallwyn  v.  Lee —
discovery  and  de^-
livery  up.
1  2  Smith's  L.  C.  1.
2  9  Ves.  24.
THE    MAXIMS    OP   EQUITY.  29

several  mortgages  usder  which  the  defendant
claimed,  and  the  defendant  averred  that  he  had  no
notice  of  the  alleged  fact  that  the  plaintiff's  father
was  only  a  tenant  for  life.  It  was  argued  for  the
plaintiff,  that  as  the  defendant  was  neither  in  pos-
session, nor  had  the  means  of  procuring  it,  the
court  ought  not  to  allow  him  to  keep  the.  deeds  for
the  sole  purpose  of  (what  counsel  chose  to  call)
extortion.  It  was  held,  however,  that  the  plea  was
a  good  defense.  "  This  bill,"  said  Lord  Eldon,  "  is
filled  by  a  person  having  got  possession.  If  the
principle  is  that  this  court  will  not  stir  against  a
purchaser  for  valuable  consideration  without  notice,
what  are  the  legal  rights  of  the  son,  tenant  in  tail,
when  his  father's  estate  determines?  His  legal
rights  are  that  he  shall  have  possession  of  the  estate.
