JUDGMENT

1. We are of opinion that this appeal must succeed. We do not say that the defence is without merits for reason which will appear in a moment--but we are quite clear that our brother ought not to have interfered with the decision, of the lower Court, because he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It is possible that he felt that the plaintiff was entitled to sympathy, and that he stretched a point in his favour. He certainly does not give any strong reason why he overruled the preliminary objection. The point is really quite simple. The plaintiff and the defendant joined in a document, which was a mortgage, whereby certain property was hypothecated in consideration of a loan, and they described themselves as mortgagors. Prima facie they were joint mortgagors or co-mortgagors. But a description of that sort which may be due either to the man who writes the document, or to carelessness of the lawyer who does not think it necessary to go into detail, cannot alter the fact, and in this particular case in fact only one of them mortgaged his property, and the other transferred, hypothecated and mortgaged none, and, therefore, he did not become a mortgagor in any sense of the