case Welsh versus fish at the chancellor house Lord chancellor mortgagor bring  a bill to redeem on payment of what be due and a decree be make accord pen the  account the mortgagee die and a bill of revivor be file against his  administratrix and a supplemental bill for a discovery of asset to the first  she plead that the suit can not be revive against her because she be  beneficiary and trust of the mortgage premise and have not be make defendant  to the original bill but the plea be overrule because the suit be not revive  against her in her own right but only as representative of the mortgagee and  as to the discovery of asset she demurrer and her demurrer be allow because  the plaintiff as appear by the bill and decree can not have any demand out of  they vern the mortgagee file his bill against Samuel fish and mary his wife  executrix of the mortgagee for a account of the rend and profit and to be let  into a redemption on payment of what be due and on hear the cause it be decree  that the master shall take a account of what be due to the defendant for  principal interest and cost and deduct out of the same what he shall find the  defendant have make by the rend and profit of the premise and the surplus be  to be pay by the mortgagor in a limit time or he be to be for ever foreclose  of his equity of redemption pen the account Samuel fish die and the mosely  report plaintiff bring his bill of revivor and supplemental bill against the  defendant mary the widow and against mary the daughter as administratrix of  her father Samuel fish for a discovery of asset and mary the daughter plead in  bar to the bill of revivor that the defendant mary the widow be devisee of the  mortgage premise in trust for her and that the decree can not be revive  against her because she have never be make a defendant to the original bill  and her council insist that the bill may have be revive against the defendant  the widow only because she be sue in auter law and the husband be only join  for conformity and as to the discovery whether her father leave asset or not  she demurrer Lord chancellor the original bill be only to redeem and do it  pretend that by the rend and profit the mortgage be pay off and the decree run  in the same manner so that it be perfect unnecessary in this case for mary the  daughter to admit asset or to set they forth and therefore I allow the  demurrer but the plea must be overrule for Samuel fish be decree to account  that account can it be carry on after his death without his representative be  before the master and therefore the bill be proper revive against mary the  daughter as his administratrix but if it have be revive against her as  beneficiary and trust of the mortgage premise then indeed her plea will have  be proper that she have not be make a party to the original bill but the  council for the plaintiff argue that the demurrer be not good because though  the decree direct the mortgagor to pay the overplus which suppose the balance  will be in favour of the mortgagee and no provision be make that the mortgagee  shall refund if the balance come out against he yet if upon the foot of the  account the mortgagee shall be find to have receive more than the principal  interest mosely report er p and cost the surplus must be refund to the  mortgagor and therefore it be necessary that the defendant shall discover or  admit asset beside the account be decree against the defendant Samuel because  he have be in perception of the profit and his asset be oblige to make good  what he shall be find to have receive but the Lord chancellor deny the first  part of their argument and say that the decree have provide for the second for  by that whatever Samuel have receive out of the rend and profit be to be set  off against the principal interest and cost