case march versus Bennett I of purifying in court master of the roll whether  the court will decree satisfaction of a bonddebt of the ancestor out of the  profit of the real estate during the minority of the infant heir where there  be a deficiency of personal asset the bill be to be relieve against a old bind  enter into by the plaintiff father on which the plaintiff be now sue as heir  to his father and it appear that the plaintiff father leave no personal estate  but leave a estate in feesimple of pound par annum which descend to his son  who be then but two year old the master of the roll take it to be a strong  objection that in almost twenty year time this debt be never demand of the  heir the date of the bind be that June r l to which it be answer that during  the plaintiff minority they have no remedy nor can compel the infant guardian  to pay the debt out of the profit of the infant estate nor be ever any such  decree make in this court but the master of the roll declare he think such  decree to be just and equitable and if such case come before he he will decree  satisfaction out of the profit of the infant estate say to waver in opinion a  issue be direct whether the say bind or how much thereof be satisfy or not Reg  lib b fol and per cur guardian be not compellable to apply the profit of the  estate of infant heir to pay off the bind debt water v ebrall post vol say  vide contra as it seem chaplin v chaplin p wms but he may without direction of  the court pay the interest of any real encumbrance and also the principal of a  mortgage because that be a direct and immediate charge on the land but not any  other real encumbrance Dennis v Badd Ch can palmer v Danby Eq can ab but  guardian may be decree to pay off a judgement with the profit of infant estate  Brissenden v decreet Ch can but where a guardian borrow money of a to pay off  a encumbrance on infant estate and promise to give a security but die without  give any though a s money be duly apply yet the court will not decree he  satisfaction out of infant estate there be no contract or agreement Hooper v  eyles post vol Kirk v web pre Ch