after stating the above. It will be noticed that while the first answer disavows any information or knowledge of what the plaintiff alleges transpired between himself and Scott, and positively denies the facts charged in reference to the plaintiff’s arrangement with the defendant, the second answer sets them out with great particularity and seeks to avoid their effect by the repeated failures of the jdaintiff to come up to his engagement to raise the money for redeeming, and his final abandonment of all right to redeem. These repugnant statements alike rest upon the defendant’s oath that they are true, and raise issues in defence wholly inconsistent, the one with the other.

The appellant sustains his overruled motion upon two grounds:

1. That the amendment is not warranted by the order allowing it; and

2. That it is repugnant to, and incompatible with, the previous adjudication.

*245 We are not prepared to admit the facts set out in the amended answer, if accepted as correct, as sufficient to bar the conceded right of the plaintiff to redeem under the original contract of the defendant, when the defendant took the plaintiff’s bond for a larger sum than he owed or the defendant advanced. The delay in paying the money admits of compensation in accruing interest, and it does not appear that the land was inadequate security for its payment, or that any special damage has come to the defendant.

Indeed the relations between these parties give to the alleged surrender of the right to redeem (while, as the plaintiff alleges and the defendant does not deny, the latter retains the plaintiff’s bond as well as the land under the mortgagee’s deed) the aspect of a coerced act not entitled to a favorable consideration in a court of equity.

But aside from this, if the answer now put in is allowed to stand, it subverts the order of reference, and if successful, annuls all done under it.

The leave given expressly restricts the amendatory matter to such as does not interfere with the taking of the account, and will not require another reference; and how can the new defence brought forward, which denies all equity to redeem, co-exist with the taking of an account, only necessary in case it is to be enforced? If there be no right to redeem on any terms, no reference is required, and the order to that effect is useless. Our interpretation of the ruling upon the first hearing is, that the plaintiff has the right to redeem, to which the taking an account is subsidiary, and that it was not intended, in the leave to amend, to allow the introduction of such new matter as would disturb the judgment, then rendered, and that the answer is not authorized by the order.

It is equally plain that the plaintiff’s right to redeem is conclusively settled, upon his payment of what is due to the defendant, and that the closed controversy which the defendant now seeks to reopen cannot be renewed as long as the first adjudication remains in force. Otherwise, there would be conflicting *246 adjudications in the same cause shown upon the record, and this has been repeatedly said to be inadmissible. Wilson v. Lineberger, 82 N. C., 412; Sanderson v. Daily, 83 N. C., 67; Mabry v. Henry, Ib., 298.

There was error then in allowing the defendant to put in the answer and in the refusal to require its withdrawal.

Nor do we think the plaintiff so negligent in making his motion as to lose his right to make it. The appeal had transferred to this court an element in the controversy, which if determined in the defendant’s favor was decisive of the action, and the delay in awaiting the adjudication ought not to deprive the plaintiff of his right to call to the attention of the court, as soon as the appeal was determined, the character of the answer and to ask that it be stricken from the files. This was done and it was in apt time.

The judgment below must be reversed, and the plaintiff’s motion allowed.

Error. Reversed.