case GAWLER versus wade Eq can Abr pl one seize of land in fee bind himself  and his heir in a bind and devise his land to I S in fee and die in a bill  bring by the obligee in the bind to subject the devisee to the payment of debt  the devisor heir must be make a party so warren v Stawell atk and see Wilson v  Knubley east one bind himself and his heir in a bind and devise his land to  J S the bill be bring upon the statute of the three and four of William mary  cap to affect the real asset in the hand of the devisee peer William and  object that the heir of the devisor ought to be make a party to the suit the  statute say that a action of debt shall be bring against the heir at law and  such devisees joint it be answer by the other side that the will have give all  from the heir and thereby break the descent it will be a vain thing to make  the heir a party in regard it will only oblige the plaintiff to pay he cost  that it be true have some part of the real asset descend to the heir then the  heir be to be make a party for then there be to be a average but when nothing  descend to the heir there can be no reason in such case for bring he before  the court and though in a action at law it be necessary to make the heir a  defendant that be because the debt be in the debet to hold off and the heir  privy to the ancestor and the devisee not and so for conformity sake the  statute in a action at law direct that the heir shall be a codefendant yet it  be otherwise in a suit in equity Lord chancellor Cowper it be the act of  parliament make this asset in the devisees hand and that require the heir to  be make a defendant you must follow the remedy therein prescribe and this bill  in equity be as a action at law otherwise if there be no heir and perhaps it  may be otherwise too if the bill have charge that the plaintiff have make  inquiry and can find or discover no heir but see Galton v Hancock atk and see  chaplin v chaplin post Vol III but quaere if the attorneygeneral must not in  such case be make a party see Humberston v Humberston post