a have a interest for a term for year in a printingoffice and make his will  and devise his term in the printingoffice to his executor in trust by profit c  to raise pound for the portion of his daughter and then for other trust and  die the executor mortgage this term for pound to I S on pretence of want of  asset to pay the testator debt and the plaintiff the assignee of the mortgagee  bring hisBill to foreclose the equity of the redemption the daughter oppose it  and insist this mortgage ought not to take place till her portion be raise for  that the say term be devise to the executor in trust for that purpose in the  first place and the mortgagee can not but have notice of it andthat there be  no debt of the testator or if any the mortgagee at his Peril ought to see the  money apply to discharge they and to be allow no more than he can make out to  be so apply Lord keep where a trust be to sell for payment of debt in a  schedule t purchaser at his Peril be to see the money apply to the payment of  those debt but here the question be how far a executor power do extend over a  chattel which have a trust annex to it the law have entrust the executor with  the personal estate to pay debt and unless he have a general power he have  none at all for if he can sell none can buy and the general trust must take  place and a purchaser be not bind to prove the debt or the number of they or  the application of the purchasemoney therefore the sale be good but after on  appeal to the house of lord they alter this decree and prefer the portion  quaere causan ind mich humble and bill vern S c it be now settle and with  great reason that a executor where there be debt may sell a term and the  devisee of the term have no other remedy but against the executor to recover  the value thereof if there be sufficient asset for the payment of debt per the  master of the bolls in the case of ewer and Corbet Trin will Rep equity case  abridge cap XLVIII remainder a OF what thing a remainder may be make if one  have the office of parkkeeper forester gaoler sheriff g to he and his heir he  may grant these office to one for life remainder to another for life c for all  things majus to hold together in see minus and as they be grantable over in  fee so may they be grant in Succession to one for life with remainder over c  so of land house rend Commons estovers or any other interest or profit in be  wherein the grantor have the absolute property to he and his heir for ever sir  h Nevil case blow b a archbishop of Canterbury case   bingham case ibidem  equity case abridge er p but where a man seize of land in fee grant thereout a  rentcharge to one for life or year remainder over to another in fee or in tail  c it be doubt if this remainder be good because this rend have no existence at  all before the grant and the grantor can be say to have any part of the rend  leave in he as he will have of land because he first give be to the equity  case abridge rend and bind the time of its existence which be run out nothing  therefore remain to grant over to another and a remainder be to be grant out  of that which will otherwise be a reversion in the grantor which here this  rend can be be new create but yet in this case by the better opinion of the  book and a judgement salk Lutw direct in point such remainder of a rend new  create have be hold good for as the grantor may at first have grant it in fee  or for ever have such perpetual and durable interest in the fund out of which  it be to arise so he may share and divide his grant and give part thereof to  one and part to another in Succession and the rather because the particular  estate and remainder be but one estate as to the grantor divide in limitation  only be limit to pass out of he all at the same time and as to he make no  difference whether the one or more take benefit joint or in Succession one  after another but if he grant such rend for life or year to one without go far  he can after grant the reversion thereof to another because he have no  reversion in he for the reason before give and the reason of this case will go  likewise to Commons estovers c new create bowl Abr   lev side keb if one be  create baron viscount c by patent and after in the same patent the same honour  be grant to another in remainder yet this operate as a new grant and not as a  remainder for the king have no reversion of that honour in he though he have  still the same power of appoint one in Succession to take it as he have of  grant it to the first king v viscount purbeck show p c but what seem most  proper to be inquire into under this head be the reason and practice of limit  remainder in personal good or chattel for they in their own nature seem  incapable of such a limitation because be thing transitory and by many  accident subject to be lose destroy or otherwise impair and also the exigence  of Tradeand commerce require a frequent circulation thereof it will put a stop  to all trade and occasion perpetual suit and quarrel if such limitation be  general tolerate and allow but yet in last will and testament such limitation  over of personal good or chattel have sometime prevail especial where the  first devisee have only the use or occupation thereof devise to he for then  they hold the property to continue in the executor of the testator and that  the first devisee have no power to alter or take it from they yet in either  case if the first devisee do actual give grant or sell such personal good or  chattel the judge will very rare allow of action to be bring by those in  remainder for recovery thereof hence it come to pass that it be a long while  ere the judge of the commonlaw can be prevail on to have any regard for a  devise over even of a chattel real or a term for year after a estate for life  limit thereon because the estate for life be in the eye of the law of great  regard and consideration than a estate for year they think he who have it  devise to he for life have therein include all that the devisor have a power  to dispose of and though they have now gain that point upon the ancient  commonlaw by establish such remainder and have thereby bring that branch out  of the chancery where they frequent help the remainderman by allow of bill to  compel the first devisee to give security yet it be at first introduce into  the equity case abridge commonlaw under the new name of executory devise and  take all the sanction it have since receive from thence and not as a remainder  for which vide Title devise but as to personal good and chattel the commonlaw  have provide no sufficient remedy for the devisee in remainder of they either  during the life of the first devisee or after his death therefore the chancery  seem to have take that branch to themselves in lieu of the other which they  lose and to allow of the same remedy for such devisee in remainder of personal  good and chattel as they before do to the devisee in remainder of chattel real  or term for year dyer cro car blow a Godolph Swinb therefore where a man  devise pound apiece to two daughter and the residue of his personal estate to  his son and if either of his child die during their minority the survivor to  be heir to the decease by equal portion the son die equity case abridge er p  and one sister bring a bill against the executor and the other sister to have  her own pound and the half of the brother personal estate and have a decree  accord but be force to give security to pay back her own pound in case she die  during her minority though it be say if we die during minority leave issue it  will be a hard case pate v Hatton Chan can