case galton versus Hancock October h be seize in fee of a estate have borrow  money in give a bind for it and a mortgage on it for a security afterward in  by will he devise the mortgage estate and a freehold for three life to his  wife and appoint her sole executrix the question be if the personal estate be  not sufficient to pay the mortgage whether the estate descend on the plaintiff  shall not make up the deficiency so that the estate decree to the wife may not  be affect while there be real asset Lord Hardwicke hold at the first hear the  wife be not entitle to such exoneration in a court of equity but must take the  estate with its burden but this decree be reverse post the defendant late  husband be seize in fee of a estate and have borrow a sum of money give a bind  for it date may and a mortgage for the same sum on the that of June follow on  the that of December he make his will and devise the estate in fee which he  have thus mortgage and also a estate for three life to the defendant his wife  and make her sole executrix in he purchase one moiety of the reversion in fee  of the lifehold estate and the other moiety in and die soon after without make  any alteration in his will the bill be bring by the heir at law to have the  deed and write of the lifehold estate the reversion in fee of which be atkins  purchase by the testator after make his will and for a account of the personal  estate the plaintiff insist that the estate descend be not liable to pay the  mortgage and endeavour to throw the burden upon the defendant to be pay out of  the personal asset and if those shall be deficient out of the estate devise to  the defendant the defendant insist that if the personal estate be not  sufficient to pay the mortgage the estate descend upon the plaintiff shall  make up the deficiency and that the estate devise to her shall not be affect  while the real asset be sufficient Mr Chute for the defendant cite heron  contra merick salk carter versus Barnardiston p wms and king versus king and  Ennis p wms Lord chancellor this cause come before the court in a odd manner  because the mortgagee be no party nor have he take any remedy in law or equity  the plaintiff however have a clear equity for the deed and write of the estate  descend and to have a account of the personal estate of the testator and I own  I think the other at first as clear a point in favour of the heir but however  as the atkins er p defendant the widow be a sufferer contrary to the intention  of her husband for he have no design of purchase the reversion in fee of the  lifehold estate at the time he make his will I be Willing to hear what can be  say on her behalf but it be so very clear that the purchase the reversion  after make the will be a revocation pro tanto that it be very candid give up  at the bar from hence it arise that the estate former lifehold be descend upon  the heir and if descend let it be by what mean it will whether by be emit in a  will or revoke it be the same thing and will not alter the right between the  party this be so it bring it to the main question whether where a real estate  be devise with a encumbrance and another descend upon the heir the devisee be  entitle to have her estate exonerate I be of opinion the devisee be not  entitle to such exoneration in a court of equity atkins there be no precedent  cite to I where it have be so determine or where the very point have come  direct before the court it have be insist on that the bind ought to be  consider as a distinct debt and the mortgage only as a collateral security and  therefore be two distinct transaction and if so the bind creditor be entitle  to come upon the real asset I will not say whether this will not make some  difference if it be the fact but it appear to I that both bind and mortgage be  to secure the same individual debt and the bind be only give in the mean time  till the mortgage can be make it be likewise insist on the part of the  defendant that the money borrow be a debt that charge the heir for the heir be  bind by the bind and the covenant in the mortgage it be very true that the  personal estate shall be apply first but at law there be no such distinction  for the creditor may proceed against the heir if he please and he have no way  to help himself say vide post but it be a very different consideration when  the question be between two real estate and it will be hard to turn the burden  off from a devisee and throw it upon a heir at law all the case prove a heir  at law to be as much if not more a favourite in a court of equity than a  devisee but none that a devisee be more favour this be a case where the  testator himself have lie a real burden upon the land devise and quite  different from the case of a general bind debt so that his mortgage it be a  material circumstance for how can a court of equity say that the testator do  not intend it shall pass cum load when there be so strong a presumption that  he do it be true say at the bar that there be no case exact in point but  carter versus Barnardiston p W S c come near to it in that case where there be  a devise of the manor of dale to one and the manor of sale to another suppose  the testator after he have thus devise these two manor have think proper to  mortgage the manor of sale this devisee may have use all these argument which  be now use to exonerate this estate by call upon the devisee of the manor of  date to bear his proportion of the mortgage atkins it be very just observe by  Mr brown that a heir at law who have a estate descend upon he be to be  consider in the same light as if the estate have be actual give to he and  there be no colour to say even lie asideathe expression of a heir at law be a  favourite of this court that a devisee shall be prefer to he in equity his  lordship decree the defendant Hancock to account for the personal estate of  her testator and that she shall deliver up the deed and write relate to the  estate descend upon the plaintiff and that they shall be give in upon oath  before a master and lodge there as a security to the defendant for her dower  upon this estate until the plaintiff shall have assign it there be a doubt  former with regard to dower but it have be settle ever since the case of  Laurence versus Laurence vern S c vide Eq Cas Abr in which though Lord summer  be of opinion that where a husband have give a estate to a wife large than her  dower it shall go in ademption of the dower yet the house of lord on the that  of may reverse his decree and hold she be entitle to both notwithstanding vide  Hitchin v Hitchin Prec Charles lemon v lemon vin Tinney v Tinney post vol  incledon v Northcote post vol har   Litt b note air v Willis Ves Arnold v  Kempstead Amb Villareal v Lord Galway Amb bro Charles Rep SC Pearson v Pearson  bro Charles Rep Bainton v Bainton ibidem Jones v collier Amb wake v wake bro  Charles Rep atkins er p