c folys case S c Eq can ab debt and legacy asset the executor of folly prefer  a bill against all the creditor some be by judgement some by bind and some by  simple contract the testator have devise land to the executor for the payment  of his debt and he have in the first place in his will devise a annuity of  pound per and to be pay to his wife my Lord chancellor direct first that the  land be devise to his executor it shall be construe that the testator intend  they shall be pay in the same order as the law direct that be to say that the  debt shall be first paid before this annuity which be but a legacy Habergham v  Vincent Ves jun Sibley v very Ves et the word of the will be how it will  although it devise the land charge with this annuity for the payment of debt  yet the debt shall have the preference kidney v Cousmaker Ves Shallcross v  finden Ves post p and append c but he hold that the debt of all kind whether  by judgement bind or simple contract shall be satisfy acquire step in  Freemoult v Dedire p wms and young v dennet dick it be hold that where the  estate be allow to descend to the heir charge such charge be legal asset but  the late decision of Bailey v ekins Ves and Shiphard v lutwidge Ves have now  settle the point that a mere charge which do not break the descent make  equitable asset and if the value of the land fall short then that they shall  be satisfy in proportion only judgement that do affect the land without any  such devise be to have the preference provide such judgement at law be obtain  before a decree for sale in equity not otherwise Martin v Martin Ves sen a  mere decree for a account will not however deprive a judgement creditor of his  right to preference very v Phelips Ves largan v bow Sch and Lef ante c p post  c p though c post p be contra but a debt by a decree in chancery shall be but  in equal degree with debt by bind or contract because that do not bind the  land until sequestration Mildred v Robinson Ves Bligh v earl Darnley p wms  Wharam v Broughton Ves sen seem to imply that a decree even when pursue to a  sequestration be equal to a judgement at law mere as to personalty but this it  be apprehend must be understand only of a sequestration upon mesne process for  a personal duty and not of a sequestration for nonperformance of a decree  affect the estate Hawkins v crook atk more especial a decree for a sale Martin  v Martin where above but so far as the personal estate do extend he order  freeman that the debt shall be pay in that order as the law do direct and  there a debt by a decree in chancery shall have the preference of a bind and  the case of Hickson and Witham post append c Ch can Rep tempt finch Eq can ab  be cite freeman er p