case goodfellow versus Burchett Julii Eq can ab pl S c one on the marriage of  his daughter give a bind to the husband for the daughter portion and afterward  by will devise land of much great value to the husband and the wife and their  heir the devise no satisfaction of the bind though there be a defect of asset  to pay the testator debt the cause have be hear and a account decree upon the  master special report the case appear to be that one hill on the marriage of  his daughter to the defendant Burchett give a bind to he for pound part of the  portion and afterward devise several land to his soninlaw Burchett and his  wife and their heir be of much great value than the debt the land be worth per  and r l and make his soninlaw Burchett also executor the plaintiff be a  creditor of hill the testator and come to discover asset real or personal to  satisfy his debt due by bind and the master state several other matter special  for the judgement of the court and thereupon three question do arise first  whether the land thus devise shall in equity be construe or take as a  satisfaction of the bonddebt and for the plaintiff the case of Blois and Blois  Ch Rep Jesson v Jesson ante p brook and yeoman and several other case where a  legacy of a great value have be construe to be intend in satisfaction of a  debt and on the other hand the case of smith and Duffield ante p be cite where  the court have so decree it and that decree reverse upon a appeal to the house  of lord per cur case of this nature depend upon circumstance and where a  legacy have be decree to go in satisfaction of a debt it must be ground upon  some evidence Vernon chancery case er p or at least a Vernon chancery case  strong presumption that the testator do so intend it but there be no room for  that in this case it plain appear the testator intend to give all he can to  his soninlaw and daughter and to defraud his creditor so can presume the  devise of the land be intend in satisfaction of the bonddebt second another  point in this case be that the defendant the executor have lose a bind for a  debt that be owe to his testator and it be insist on by the plaintiff that the  defendant ought to stand charge therewith and make good the debt to his  testator estate for the defendant it be insist that a bind be not asset at law  but a creditor must expect until the money due upon it be recover nor be the  loss of a bind a devastavit at law and it will be hard to make the executor  answer it out of his own estate in case the obligor be insolvent as in this  case he be especial in equity and the rather for that the lose of the bind do  not lose the debt but may be recover in equity and the defendant have already  bring a bill against the obligor for that purpose the court incline to charge  the defendant with the debt but for the present direct only that the defendant  shall prosecute the suit bring by he against the obligor with effect in order  to recover the money due on the bind that be lose and respite judgement in the  mean time three a three point in this case be whether a judgement confess by  the executor to a bondcreditor after the bill bring in this court by the  plaintiff who be also a bondcreditor shall be allow upon the account it be  insist for the defendant that it ought to be allow for that the bring of a  bill in equity be not strong nor can bind the asset more than the bring of a  original at law and even in Vernon chancery case that case after a original  file by a bondcreditor if another bondcreditor bring his action the executor  may confess judgement on the late action and that shall take place the  executor may retard one action and confess judgement to another subsequent  action and in some case be oblige to confess judgement for his own defence and  plead such judgement to other action then depend otherwise if several action  shall come to be try at the same time he may be double charge and oblige to  answer the value of the asset twice over but a voluntary payment indeed make  after a original file or bill exhibit shall not be allow v but even in the  case of a voluntary payment if the suit at law be not by original but for the  purpose upon a latitat out of the king bench there a voluntary payment shall  stand good though after the action bring per cur allow the payment on the  judgement confess after the bill bring Reg lib a fol vide Surrey v Smalley  ante Vol and case cite in not there vide Lechmere v earl of Carlisle p wms and  note e there and general on the head of ademption and satisfaction husband v  husband ante Vol and case in note there and as a principle it be to be remark  that accord to the dictum of Hardwicke Lord chancellor in lee v daranda ves  the court lean against double satisfaction and note there be a distinction as  to satisfaction between the case of double portion and performance of a  covenant in the former small circumstance of difference be overlook and  satisfaction presume trim v bayne Tr Ves and the same principle appear to  prevail in the case of double portion by a settlement and subsequent will  Barclay v wainwright Ves Hinchcliffe v Hinchcliffe ibidem spark v cator ibidem  as to a legacy from debtor to creditor be consider as a satisfaction for a  debt if equal or of great amount it appear the rule be so establish but that  the court will lie hold of slight circumstance to get out of it chancy case p  wms and note Nicholls v Judson atk Barclay v wainwright ub sup Hinchcliffe v  Hinchcliffe Ves Wallace v pomfret two Ves Talbot v duke of Shrewsbury pre Ch  and see the case of Devese v pontet report by Mr finch in note to brown v  Dawson pre Ch I Cox where the principal case be rely on by master of the roll  in his judgement cite also arg in finch v finch Ves Jun which be the case of  legacy consider as satisfaction of child interest in a portion under a  agreement not execute but it have be determine that all separate debt shall be  account asset in the executor hand Robinson v bell ante and so at law for  obligee may declare upon the bind as lose totty v Nesbitt Vernon chancery case  er p b r Trin Geo d cite in reed v Brookman t Rep et vide Atkinson v Leonard  bro Ch Rep though former otherwise for in ware v turner ves Hardwicke Lord  chancellor say no one can bring a action on a bind without a profert in cur  Vernon chancery case de term S michaelis in curian porter