case challis versus CASBORN Eq Abr pl pale yellow Eq Rep S c vern ante wms atk  atk a mortgagor who borrow more money from the mortgagee on his bind shall  redeem without pay the bind debt but his heir can neither can the devisee of  the equity of redemption since the statute against fraudulent devise in this  case it be say by Mr Vernon and agree to by the court that if a man have a  debt owe to he by mortgage and another on bind from the same person that the  can tack they together against the mortgagor but that he shall be let into a  redemption on payment of the mortgage money only but the heir in such case  shall not be let into a redemption without payment of both because the land in  his hand be Chargeable with the bind even at law and now since the statute  against fraudulent devise the devisee of the equity of redemption be in the  same case and can redeem without payment of both because the statute make such  devise void as against creditor and then the devisee stand in the same place  as the heir must have do if no devise have be make but before that statute  such devisee will not be liable to the bind debt any more than the mortgagor  himself another point in this case be that a man seize of some freehold estate  and also of a copyhold estate devise all his real and personal estate for the  payment precedent in chancery of his debt and die without any surrender of the  copyhold estate to the use of his will and whether this court will supply the  want of such surrender as they will have do if the copyhold estate have be  express mention in the will as copyhold Mr William say the master of the roll  have supply the defect of a surrender in such a case where there be no  freehold at all and he think it the same case here where the freehold estate  be not sufficient for payment of the debt post Eq Abr pl S p pl case tempt  Talb wms brown Rep but my Lord chancellor say he have never know it carry so  far because he think the devise of his real estate do not show a intention to  pass a copyhold which in the eye of the law be of the low regard and look upon  only a estate at will though custom have now fix it in the copyholder and say  unless they can show some precedent he can not assist they a three point be  that the devisees of the real and personal estate be make executor ante and  therefore Mr Vernon say it be a settle distinction in this court that they  ought to apply the estate in such case in a course of administration because  if the estate be sell it will be personal asset in their hand and then to pay  a debt of a inferior nature before one of a superior will be a devastavit but  if they have not be make executor then the creditor shall have come in all  equal because in equity all debt be equal and they as trustee can give no  preference and will be in no danger as executor in such case but my Lord  chancellor think the accident of their be make executor ought to make no  difference in equity but that all creditor shall be consider equal and will  see precedent though Mr Vernon say it have be a settle distinction and several  precedent in point in these case it be hold that the copyhold estate be liable  in case the freehold be insufficientfor the payment of debt same point  determine in Gibson v coombs brown c c which appear to be the most modern  authority