case BLAKEWAY versus earl OF strafford S c in h l bro p c Lord chancellor king  Sel can in Charles Eq can ab pl one owe a debt by simple contract bar by the  statute of limitation devise land in trust to pay his debt queen whether the  debt be revive by the will the plaintiff bring his bill against the earl of  Strafford as administrator with the will annex of sir Henry Johnson to be pay  out of asset and show by his bill that he be a sailmaker and be employ by sir  Henry from to July to fit sailcloths and other tackle to sir Henry ship on  which account sir Henry be indebt to the plaintiff in pound and that in  December the plaintiff receive pound in part of his debt and that sir Henry  die the that of September have make his will and devise his land to his  executor in trust to pay his debt and that his executor renounce the defendant  the earl of Strafford administer with the will annex the defendant plead the  statute of limitation and that neither the defendant nor as he believe sir  Henry make any promise to pay the debt in question within six year before the  bill bring for the plea it be say saint that this plea of the statute ought  not to be discourage any more than that of the statute of fine it be make  equal for the quiet and repose of the subject especial in the case of a  executor or administrator as the present case be who may not be suppose to be  able to prove payment as the intestate if alive will have be peer William dly  that by the statute of limitation the debt be bar extinct and become as no  debt and therefore the will of sir Henry Johnson subject the land to the  payment of his debt must be construe to mean such debt as be then subsist not  stale demand bar by the statute for that a contrary construction will give way  for vexatious demand and occasion people rake up old dormant pretence on the  other side it be argue saint that the statute of limitation be far from  extinguish the debt which be still subsist and to be bar only by plead the  statute which the defendant be not bind to do that it be plain the debt be not  extinguish because the very acknowledge of it will revive and take it out of  the statute dly that in this case sir Henry Johnson have pay pound in in part  of the debt be a acknowledgement that the rest be due and that this be take  the case out of the statute sir Henry die in dly that the will of sir Henry  subject his land to the payment of his debt peer William er p do create a  trust which be not bar by the statute of limitation and they cite the case of  stagger versus Welby vide salk vern Gofton versus mill where it be decree by  Lord Cowper that such a will subject land to the payment of debt do raise a  trust and revive a debt bar by the statute of limitation Lord chancellor I  will be cautious of give any relief peer William against a act of parliament  but it be plain the debt be not extinguish by the statute of limitation since  the statute must be plead which the defendant be not bind to do and if he  afterward will acknowledge the debt it take it out of the statute but let I be  attend with the case of stagger versus Welby which accord be do and thereupon  his lordship overrule this plea of the statute of limitation upon a appeal  bring in the house of lord this decree be reverse and the plea order to stand  for a answer with liberty to except but not to oblige the defendant to make  any discovery of the value or particular of the real or personal estate  appoint by the will of sir h Johnson for the payment of his debt and that the  benefit of the plea shall be save to the defendant till the hear of the cause  bro p c bro p c and ed to which case a note be subjoin that after a very  diligent search at the registeroffice the author be not able to find any  further proceed in the cause vide Jones v earl of Strafford post vol Legastick  v Cowme mos Lacon v Briggs atk peer William de term S michaelis