atkins case uvedale versus uvedale July I W by his will direct his real estate  to be sell after his wife death and the money arise therefrom to be equal  divide between r u and five other person the bill be bring by the widow for a  sale r u be a infant and as heir at law to the testator have the legal  interest in the estate though the usual practice be for the parole to demurrer  till the infant come of age yet it be for his interest that it shall be sell  and as in this case there be a trust to be perform and the court can see to a  pro per application of the money Lord Hardwicke decree a sale but declare at  the same time he do not mean by this direction to break in upon the rule of  the parole demurrer James uvedale make his will date the d of February therein  recite that he have by lease and release convey to trustee the several estate  therein mention in trust for the plaintiff the widow as a jointure he thereby  confirm the same and will that she shall have the rend c of the say land c  during her life accord to the deed and after her death will that the same  shall be sell and the money arise by sale thereof to be equal divide between  his nephew Robert uvedale and five other person share and share alike and in  case of any of their death before the sale their share to go to their child  and if no child to be at their own disposal the bill be bring by the widow of  the testator to have the real estate of James uvedale sell or so much thereof  as shall be sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff demand the plaintiff have  fifteen hundred pound to her fortune and before marriage James uvedale the  husband covenant with trustee that he will pay to they fifteen hundred pound  which with pound the wife fortune the trustee be with the wife consent to lie  out in the purchase of land for her jointure to be lie out in the purchase of  land for her jointure he in his lifetime and after the marriage lie out money  to the amount of two thousand eight hundred and fiftyone pound in the purchase  of land and make a settlement of these land on the plaintiff for her jointure  the plaintiff be a party to and execute this deed the plaintiff after her  husband death refuse to enter on the jointure estate but insist that the  testator have make the purchase for his own convenience without the consent of  her trustee and that she be not oblige to accept the land so purchase in  performance of the article but that they ought to be old and the money arise  thereby together with so much of the testator personal estate as will be  sufficient for that purpose shall be lie out in purchase of other land the  defendant Robert uvedale one of the devisees of the testator real estate be a  infant and as heir at law to the testator have the legal interest in the  estate atkins it come on before the chancellor on exception and it be allow by  all the party to be for the interest of the infant that the estate shall be  sell but the doubt be whether accord to the rule of the court it can be direct  for the practice be for the parole to demurrer till the infant come of age  Lord chancellor the principal question be whether the court can decree a sale  or whether the parole must demurrer till the defendant Robert uvedale the  infant come of age now this be extreme desirable if it can be attain and the  court will go as far as possible to do it and I be in hope the court may come  at it in the case before they the will take the land to be settle but the  settlement will not alter the case for though it give a estate for life it do  not break the descent for it be not material whether the infant take a  immediate inheritance or expectant upon a estate for life for the court can  decree a sale of a reversion as well as of a estate in possession now if this  have be a devise of a remainder or reversion to trustee to sell the difficulty  will have be remove for the court then will have direct they to sell and give  the infant a day to show cause but this be not the case for the estate be  descend on he and he have take the legal estate by descent subject to the  purpose of the trust note equity in this case consider the land as bind by the  trust and the heir in who the legal estate be vest as a trustee see Mr  hargrave note to   Litt under fol a the wife renounce the estate for life  under the will which will put this out of the case the word after her decease  be not put in to postpone the sale atkins er p but the question still recur  whether the estate may be sell when it be upon the bill of a specialty  creditor pray to be sell the plaintiff bill be not mere for the satisfaction  of a specialty debt but for the performance of a trust likewise but this will  not alter the case for still it be as to the infant a demand for payment of a  specialty debt what distinguish it from the common case be that here be a  specialty creditor who be entitle to a satisfaction out of the real estate  before the trust for the sale can be perform atkins and the beneficiary and  trust be likewise entitle to have this estate sell and the court be only to  take care to have the money arise from the sale proper apply I go upon this  that it may be remember I do not give this direction to break in upon the rule  of the parole demurrer for a infant chaplin v chaplin p W Scarth v cotton can  tempt Talb that as here be a trust vide creed v Colville vern to be perform I  think I may decree a sale and that the decree be bind on the infant unless he  show cause to the contrary within six month after he come of age as here the  application of the money be what the court be principal to take care of in  this case the sum of three thousand pound arise from the sale must be direct  to be lie out in the purchase of land to be settle to the use in the article  another question be whether the executor can be allow his cost of this suit  the rule of law be that wherever a executor be sue for a debt of a testator  the court of law look upon it as a unjust defence and give cost de good not  common with others but in equity it be discretionary whether they will make a  executor pay cost or no and though this may be a unfortunate case to the  executor yet lie must consider with himself before he apply for the probate  Humphrey v Morse ante atk vol vide etian Humphrys v more ante atk vol note for  afterward he must take the event and this court though the specialty creditor  sweep away the whole personal estate will not let the executor reimburse  himself his cost out of the real estate of the debtor to the prejudice of his  heir at law the personal estate be apprehend to be deficient to satisfy the  specialty debt but if the personal asset be more than sufficient to pay this  debt the executor may then have his cost out of the residue the consideration  of the defendant cost be reserve general till after the master report Reg lib  b fol