challis versus CASBORN S c Prec Chan a defective surrender c make good see  Chan Rep vern vern salk ante Mapletofts case and note p will in this case it  say by Vernon and agree to by the court that if a man have a debt owe to he by  mortgage and another on bind by the same person that he may tack they together  against the mortgagor and that he shall not be let into a redemption without  payment of both because the land in his hand be Chargeable with the bind even  at law and now since the statute against fraudulent devise the devise of the  equity of redemption be in the same case he can it redeem without payment of  both because the statute make such devise void as against creditor and then  the devisee stand in the same place as the heir must have do if no devise have  be make but before that statute such devise will not be liable to the bind  debt no more than the mortgagor himself another point in this case be that a  man seize of some freehold estate and also of copyhold estate devise all his  estate real and personal for the payment of his debt and die without any  surrender of the copyhold estate to the use of his will and coheir this court  will supply the want of such surrender as they will have do if the copyhold  estate have be express mention in the will as copyhold Mr William say the  master of the roll have supply the defect of a surrender in the case where  there be no freehold estate at all and he think it the same case here where  the freehold estate be not sufficient for payment of the debt but the  chancellor say he have never know it carry so far because he think the devise  of the real estate do not show any intention to Gilbert pass a copyhold which  in the eye of the law be of the low regard and look upon only as a estate at  will though custom have now fix it in the copyholder and say unless they can  show some precedent he can not assist they a three point be that the devisees  of the real and personal estate be make executor and so Mr Vernon say it a  settle distinction in this court that they ought to apply the estate in such  case in a course of Administration because if the estate be sell it will be  personal asset in their hand and then to pay a debt of inferior nature before  one of a superior will be a devastavit but if they have not be make executor  then the creditor shall have come in all equal because in equity all debt be  equal and they as trustee can give no preference and will be in no danger as  executor in such case but the chancellor think the accident of their be make  executor ought to make no difference in equity but that all creditor shall be  consider equal and will see precedent though Mr Vernon say it have be a settle  distinction and several precedent in point