case burn versus best all Eq can ab pl pl S c devisee of land in trust to pay  mortgage in the first place and then legacy be make executor he mortgage to  raise money to pay other debt of the testator such new mortgage shall take  place of the legacy the plaintiff exhibit his bill to redeem the case fall out  to be that one Jo comb be seize of the copyhold land in question and have take  up money Vernon chancery case er p upon they and secure the repayment of the  same by several mortgage make of the say land he afterward surrender they to  the use of his last will which he need not to have do for have only a equity  of redemption he may have devise they without the formality of any such  surrender et such dict arg in Greenhill v Greenhill post vol pre Ch SC king v  king p wms so it be the constant rule of this court per master of the roll  Allen v Poulton ves but a intent to pass the land must appear ibidem and  thereby devise they to one Yeates in trust in the first place to pay off and  discharge the mortgage on the say land and in the next place for payment of  several legacy and particular a legacy of pound unto the complainant wife the  remainder in fee to Yeates and make Yeates his executor the devise be to  Yeates his heir and assign for ever upon trust to discharge all such mortgage  as shall be charge on the land in question at the time of his the testator  death and afterward to pay the say Susannah the plaintiff late wife and and  Yates pound apiece on their attain or marriage or within two year after the  say Robert Yeates shall enjoy his estate and no more and then make Yeates  executor r l Yeates prove the will and pay several debt owe by his testator  that be not mortgage debt and to raise money for that purpose make several new  mortgage of the land in question the plaintiff be a legatee in right of his  wife exhibit his bill for satisfaction of his wife legacy and insist that  after the mortgage make by comb be discharge the land then shall stand charge  with his legacy and that Vernon chancery case then he ought to be let into a  immediate satisfaction thereof and not be postpone by the new mortgage make by  Yeates but by the defendant counsel it be insist that the plaintiff can not be  admit to redeem part without redeem the whole and the land stand charge as  well with the mortgage make by Yeates as with those make by comb and in this  case Yeates be not only a trustee for payment of debt but also executor to the  devisor and so the land in his hand become legal asset send vide Girling v lee  ante and case there cite and charge with all the debt of the testator and by  consequence with the new mortgage make by Yeates the money have be raise and  apply for payment of the debt of the testator but it be reply that be so where  a general trust be raise for payment of all debt but in this case Yeates be a  special trustee and direct by the will to pay off the mortgage and then the  legacy and no provision be make for other debt say non allocatur it appear  that Yeates have sell several part of the estate to person who state  themselves to be purchaser for valuable consideration but nothing say of  notice and as against they the bill be dismiss they have purchase from Yeates  who be not only a executor but a trustee and thereby have power to sell the  mortgage be forfeit and mortgagee of Yeates deny notice and then the word of  the decree be as to the several mortgage his lordship further declare that the  say plaintiff shall be at liberty to procure a purchaser to buy all the say  mortgage premise or any part thereof and that the defendant Yeates and the say  mortgagee or such of they who mortgage land shall be sell shall join in the  sale of the say premise and what money shall remain over and above to satisfy  the say mortgagee their principal interest and charge the same to go towards  the satisfy the plaintiff the say legacy of pound interest and charge and the  remainder if any to Yeates but in default of purchaser the plaintiff shall  have liberty to redeem the say mortgage premise but if no purchaser or  plaintiff shall not elect to redeem or shall not redeem then the bill against  mortgagee to be dismiss and Yeates to release and be bar of equity of  redemption and a account decree against Yeates r l vide Eccles v Thawill hill  pre Ch in this case comb have mortgage part of his copyhold land in fee be  customary land of inheritance unto one best best surrender they to the use of  his will and devise to his wife for life remainder in fee to the defendant  Barnaish and make his wife executrix and it be pray on his behalf that if the  plaintiff redeem the defendant Barnaish may have a proportionable share of the  redemption money accord to the value of the estate he have in the land and the  matter in fact appear to be so upon the plead although the defendant have no  cross bill for that purpose nor so much as insist upon it in his answer it be  order by the Lord chancellor that the defendant Barnaish shall have his  proportionable part of the redemption money and the ordinary rule of the court  in such case be say to be that onethird of the money shall be pay to the  tenant for life and the twothirds residue to the remainderman Reg lib a fol  enter burn v Yeates in James v hail pre Ch it be say if estate in mortgage be  settle on a for life and then to b in tail or in fee tenant for life shall  bear this of principal and interest and remainderman this SC more full report  post vol but the rule be consider settle as in the principal case Cornish v  mew Ch can ballet v sprainger pre Ch Cleat v Batteson post Jones v Selby pre  Ch anon p wms partridge v paulet l atk but it apply only to the time of actual  enjoyment Tracey v Hereford bro Ch Rep et vide the other case cite by Mr  sander in his note on partridge v paulet ub sup so in the case of tenant for  life of estate hold for life one of the life drop the rule of the court be  that tenant for life shall pay d of the charge of renewal or keep down the  interest Verney v Verney Amb but now the rule be that the tenant for life be  to pay in proportion to the benefit he derive from the renewal white v white  Ves Allan v backhouse v b Vernon chancery case er p