case Starkey versus brook Lord chancellor Cowper Eq can ab pl one devise land  to his executor who be no relation to sell for the best price and to pay his  debt legacy and funeral so far as the same will extend and give legacy to his  heir at law and pound to the child of one of his executor but nothing to his  executor in such case the executor shall be but trustee for heir at law after  debt pay Philip Starkey be seize in fee devise his land to two gentleman of  his acquaintance but who be not of kin to he and their heir in trust to be  sell by they or the survivor of they for the best price and with the money to  pay his debt legacy and funeral so far as the same will extend and among other  legacy he give pound to jane style and pound to Elizabeth style who be his  cousin and coheir and make the two devisees executor give pound to the child  of one of they the surplus of the money arise by the sale be pound the  question be whether it shall go to the trustee who be also executor or to the  heir at law who in this case bring a bill against the executor for a account  of the surplus peer William on behalf of the devisees the executor it be  object that here be express legacy give to the coheir which imply that they  shall have no more and the case of Crompton v north Chan Rep be say to be in  point also in this case as there be legacy give t the heir at law so on the  other hand nothing be leave to the executor Lord chancellor in case of this  nature the circumstance must govern now the chief objection be that here be  express legacy give to the heir at law and none to the executor but the will  be that the executor shall sell the estate for the best price that they can  get for the same this clause need not to have be put in if the devisees be  intend to be owner beside suppose the personal estate have be sufficient to  have pay the debt and that there have be no need of any sale sure the devisees  shall not in such case have go away with the estate from the heir at law it be  material also that the trustee be to apply the money arise by the sale in  payment of debt legacy and funeral by which be imply the whole money and that  show it wasnot design to be a beneficial trust again devise the estate and  power of sale to the survivor be a far argument of its be rather a trust than  a ownership and that the trust be intend to follow the estate wherefore let  the devisees account for the surplus to the heir at law vide Hobart v countess  of Suffolk vern hill v bishop of London atk cook v Duckenfield atk king v  denison v b vide cruse v barley post Vol III