case lord Hollis versus lady car a of purifying in court Lord chancellor Eq  can ab pl S c one devise his land for payment of his just debt testator while  a student at Cambridge have be by surprise prevail upon to give a covenant for  payment of a portion to his sister but afterward the testator all along  contest this debt yet decree this to be a debt to be pay within this general  provision ante case this cause come on this day to be hear again and the  plaintiff by his now bill seek relief upon the will of sir Robert car who have  devise his land for payment of his just debt it be insist for the defendant  that the plaintiff debt be not within the intent and meaning of this provision  for payment of debt that sir Robert car always obstinate oppose the payment of  it and look upon it that he be surprise and circumvent in the covenant obtain  from he when he be but just come of age and a student at Cambridge for the  payment of his sister portion to which he be no way liable and that therefore  he always refuse to levy a fine whereby to subject his land for payment of it  although he be decree so to do and they cite the case of Hollis and Norden  vern where a debt that the party have always contest to the last be by the  Lord keeper north adjudge not to be within the intent of a provision make by a  person for payment of all his just debt and such provision have not be extend  to all Vernon chancery case sort of debt as debt that arise by a misfeasance  as a escape or breach of trust which be contract mala fide have never be take  to be within a general provision make for payment of debt Lord chancellor sir  Robert car have devise his estate for payment of all his just debt and the  plaintiff debt must now be take to be such the law have say it be a just debt  so it have be hold if one by will or deed subject his land to the payment of  his debt debt bar by statute of limitation shall be pay for they be debt in  equity and the duty remain per Cowper Lord chancellor anon salk pl Vaughan v  guy mrs Legastick v Cowme ibidem Andrews v brown pre Ch Gofton v mill post vol  and so the doctrine seem to be settle but in the case of Blakeway v earl of  Strafford p wms and Jones v earl of Strafford p wms and several case it be  consider as shake nor do it appear to have be consider as settle in  Oughterlony v powis Amb that may although in Lacon v Briggs July that atk Lord  Hardwicke be report to have say I have often wonder how this rule I e the rule  for revive the debt at first prevail and judge have always grumble at it  though it be now establish in equity and the reporter follow this with vide  Lord Strafford case in the house of lord Feb but see Burke v Jones v b where  the case on this subject be review and it be determine that such a devise do  not revive a debt bar by lapse of time before the testator death and have not  sir Robert car devise his land for the payment of his debt they will have  descend on his heir and be asset in her hand and liable to have satisfy the  plaintiff demand on sir Robert car covenant and therefore decree the debt with  interest