228 CAMPBELL'S CASE.

interests of strangers, or to defeat the rights of bona fide purchasers
for a valuable consideration; because, as to strangers, a private
act is considered only in the light of a private conveyance; (w) as
where an act gave the lands of Priory's alien to the king, it was
held, that it did not extinguish an annuity of a Prior, which he had
out of a rectory; although there was not any saving in the act;
and so too, where a statute makes a conveyance good against the
king, or any certain person, it is not allowed to take away the
rights of any others although there be not any saving in the act. (x)
But where there is an estate in remainder, which the party may
bar by a fine and common recovery, in such case, the claimant of
such outstanding estate may be bound by a private act of parlia-
ment, although not named in it; because the legislative enactment
is only another form of effecting that which might have been done
by an ordinary course of judicial proceeding, (y)

In a case however, where a private act of parliament was passed
authorizing the sale of a real estate, during the infancy of the heir,
to pay debts, which directed, that the mortgage should be first
paid; and it afterwards appeared, that there were judgments by
which the estate was bound prior to the mortgage; it was never-
theless held, that the act must be obeyed, and the mortgage first
paid. But it seemed to be admitted, that, by virtue of the general
saving in the act, the judgment creditors might make use of their
incumbrances as they could at law. This determination appears
to have been pronounced with some hesitation and reluctance, (z)
The parliament, by thus arbitrarily altering the rights of the parties,
and ordering the mortgage to be first paid to the prejudice of prior
judgment creditors, exerted a kind of supreme power, which it has
been declared, should never be exercised upon any occasion, and
was too dangerous to be entrusted even to that body. (a) No court
of justice, of England, has ever ventured to assume such a power,
in any form; for as it has been said, men's deeds and wills, by

v. Lee, 2 Saund, 96, a.; Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Blac. 490; Perchard v. Heywood, 8 T.
R. 472; Wallwyn v. Lee, 9 Ves. 25; Bullock v. Fladgate, 1 Ves. & Bee. 471; Vaux-
hall Bridge Company v. Earl Spencer, 2 Mad. Rep. 355; S. C. 4 Cond. Chan. Rep. 28;
Edwards v. The Grand Junction Railway Company, 10 Cond. Chan. Rep. 85;
Moore v. Usher* 10 Cond. Chan. Sep. 107; 2 Blac. Com. 344; 5 Cruise Dig.
til 38.—-(w) Pomfret v. Windsor, 2 Ves. 480,—(x) Sir Francis Barrington's case,
8 Co. 271; Provost of Eton v. Bishop of Winton, 3 Wils. 496; Townley v. Gibson,
2 T. R. 705; Riddell v. White, Anstr. 281; Dwarris' Statutes, 635; 6 Cruise
Dig. tit. 33.—(y) Westby v.Kiernan, Amb. 697.—(±) Ward v. Cecil, 2 Vern, 711.—
(a Kames' Pri Eg. b. l, p, 1, s. 4.

*