case car versus countess of Burlington Lord chancellor Harcourt Eq can ab pl a  trust term be raise to pay all debt equal and the party die indebt by bind and  simple contract the bind creditor may be pay part of their debt out of the  personal estate and shall nevertheless come in upon the trust term for the  remainder equal with the simple contract debt Richard late earl of Burlington  owe debt b bind and simple contract make a lease of his land in England and  Ireland to trustee in trust to pay all the debt which he shall owe at his  death all to be pay in a just proportion without preference of one debt before  another and die thus indebt the bondcreditors have be pay good part of their  debt out of the earl personal estate by his executor upon which it be now  object that if these bind creditor will take advantage of the trust term they  ought to waive the benefit of their preference out of the personal estate that  this be the intent of the testator who can let they peer William into the  benefit of the trust term upon what condition he please and that in equity a  simplecontract debt be as much a debt and due in conscience as any other that  equal payment of all debt be favour in equity equality be the high equity peer  William er p but by Lord chancellor Harcourt the bondcreditors may still come  in to be pay the remainder of their debt in proportion with the simplecontract  creditor for the law give they the fund of the personal estate and the party  videlicet the late earl give they the fund of the trustterm and the clause  that no debt shall have preference must be intend only with regard to their  satisfaction out of the trustterm his lordship also declare that by this  trustterm the simple contract debt become as debt due by mortgage and  consequent shall carry interest as well as the debt secure by bind vide post  Maxwell v Wettenhall Vol two the authority of this case have be much question  on both its point Lloyd v William atk Barwell v Parker ves earl of bath v earl  of Bradford ves it may in fact be now consider as overrule see Creuze v hunter  Ves jun bro c c S c shirt v Westby Ves as to the first point by Reg lib a foe  it appear that the two cause of Clifford v earl of Burlington and car v  countess of Burlington come on to be hoard on the master special report who  state that the earl of Burlington decease by indenture of d August grant and  demise his several estate therein mention to trustee for the several term  therein mention upon trust to raise and pay all such sum of money as the say  earl shall owe at the time of his death for servant wage but not to postpone  or hinder during his life thepayment of the debt mention in the schedule annex  amount to pound S d and such interest as be then due or shall thereafter grow  due in just proportion not prefer one creditor before another and after  servant wage and the debt in the schedule mention and other incidental charge  pay the say trustee be to stand possess of the say premise for the residue of  the say term in trust for the say earl his heir and assign and by deed poll  date that August the earl direct that the several premise mention in the deed  of d August after the trust therein mention be perform and satisfy shall stand  charge with the payment of all such debt as he shall owe at his death in just  and due proportion not prefer one person before another it also appear that  great part of the personal estate have be apply in payment of the judgement  creditor whereupon his lordship declare that the personal estate of the say  earl of Burlington ought to be first apply to pay his judgement creditor in a  course of administration and what of the say personal estate have be so apply  the same be well apply and as to the question touch what satisfaction the say  judgement creditor ought to have for what shall remain due and unsatisfy to  they by the personal estate his lordship declare that such of the say  judgement creditor who debt be include in the schedule ought to in to receive  a satisfaction equal with other the say earl creditor who be include in the  say schedule and that such of the say judgement creditor who debt be not  include in the say schedule ought to come in to receive such satisfaction  equal with the other creditor of the say earl the payment of who debt be  provide for b the say deed of trust of the that of August and do order the  same accord and for that purpose it be hereby refer to the master to see what  be due to the say judgement creditor and to carry on interest on such of the  debt of the say earl as in their nature carry interest but the say master be  not to carry on any interest on any security after the decease of the say earl  in order to charge the trust estate with the payment thereof and the say  master be to see what satisfaction the say judgement creditor or any of they  have receive by the say earl personal estate and there shall be any surplus of  the say personal estate more than will pay what shall appear due for principal  and interest on the say judgement due at the time of the death of the say earl  then the say judgement creditor be to have their interest due to the time they  shall receive a satisfaction so far as the personal estate will extend and if  after the say judgement creditor shall be so satisfy by the personal estate  there shall be a surplus of personal estate leave then the bind creditor of  the say earl be to have interest for their debt since the say earl death until  they shall be satisfy so far as the personal estate will extend and if the say  trust estate shall be more than sufficient to pay all the say creditor then  the cc consideration of the creditor interest from the death of the say late  earl be hereby reserve say vide Deg v Deg post Vol two haslewood v pope post  Vol III morris v bank of England can tempt Talb peer William er p the decree  be otherwise et vide contra Barwell v Parker ves earl of bath v earl of  Bradford ves Shirley v earl Ferrer bro C C though in Bothomley v Lord Fairfax  post interest be allow to simple contract creditor under similar circumstance  and see Creuze v hunter Ves jun bro c c S c Lloyd v Baldwin Bedford v coke  society for propagate the gospel v Jackson cite Ves jun tait v Northwick Ves  by which latter case a provision b will for payment of the interest of the  testator debt be hold not to extend to a debt by simple contract