case coleman versus winch Lord Macclesfield Eq can ab pl pre Charles one seize  in fee mortgage to a and afterward bind himself and his heir by bind to a and  die if the heir come to redeem this mortgage he must pay the bind debt as well  as the mortgage but if the heir assign the equity of redemption to I S who  bring his bill to redeem he shall pay the mortgage only and not the bind a  seize in fee of land make a mortgage to b for pound and afterward borrow pound  more of b upon bind and die the heir at law convey the inheritance and equity  of redemption of the premise to trustee in trust for payment of all the bind  and simplecontract debt of his father equal after which the trustee bring  their bill to redeem b who insist on be pay he debt by bind as well as that by  mortgage and for the mortgagee it be object first that as he have the estate  at law absolute and the trustee can not come at it without the interposition  of equity peer William it seem not agreeable to reason that he shall be hinder  by this court from receive what be due to he by bind as well as by mortgage  the former be as just a debt and as much due in conscience as the latter  second that if the heir have bring a bill to redeem the mortgage it be plain  he must have pay as well the bonddebt as that by mortgage and if the heir must  have pay it why shall any one claim under he be in a better condition than he  himself peer William er p Lord chancellor the bind of the ancestor wherein the  heir be bind become upon the ancestor death the heir own debt for which he be  suable in the debet and to hold off and therefore if he come to redeem the  mortgage make by his ancestor he must pay the debt by bind as well as that by  mortgage but though this be the debt of the heir it can be say to be due from  the heir assignee the bind be no lie upon the land see Adam v Claxton Ves  which appear most plain in that it be no lie on the land even against the  mortgagor himself who happen to be indebt to the same person by mortgage and  by bind suppose one be indebt to a by mortgage of a term for year and also  indebt to he by bind if on the death of the mortgagor his executor bring a  bill to redeem the peer William mortgage he must pay both but if the executor  assign over the equity of redemption of the mortgage term and the assignee of  the executor bring a bill to redeem he shall only pay the mortgage money see  Vanderzee v Willis bro c c so if the testator be possess of a term mortgage it  to a and become also indebt to a by simple contract and die his executor bring  a bill to redeem shall pay both the mortgage so anon vern Demandray v Metcalf  pre Charles and the debt by simple contract because the very equity of  redemption be asset to pay simplecontract debt but if any creditor of the  testator bring a bill to redeem this mortgage he shall pay only the mortgage  Lord chancellor far say that the law of England in suit against heir imitate  the civil law where a heir S Lied by a bondcreditor be sue as for his own debt  in the debet and to hold off and be prima fancy suppose to have asset but that  the heir may discharge himself by say that at the time of the writ bring he  have no asset or if he have asset descend may show those asset of which the  plaintiff may if he please take judgement and that in case the heir have alien  before action bring though at law there be no remedy against he yet in equity  he be responsible for the value of the land alien but now the heir be liable  at law for the value of the asset he have alien by W m c Shuttleworth v  Laycock vern powis v Corbett atk Troughton v Troughton ves so shall devisee  within the statute of fraudulent devise challis v Casborne I Eq can ab pl  otherwise where the devise be for payment of debt Heames v species of fish atk  nor shall a mortgagee be permit to tack his bind as against other specialty  creditor in the course of administration of legal asset Lowthian v hassel bro  c c Hammerton v Roger Ves jun Adam v Claxton Ves and see brace v Marlboro post  Vol ill latouche v Dunsany Sch l Jones v smith Ves jun ex part Herbert Ves  overrule collet v de goll can tempt Talb Willie v lugg Eden Qure yet for in  the case of Baxter v plan I vern it be decree by Lord keeper north that where  the mortgagee lend more money to the mortgagor on bind the mortgagor shall not  redeem without pay the bonddebt as well as the mortgage and yet in the case of  challis v Casborn pre Charles it be lie down by counsel for a rule and agree  to by Lord Cowper that the mortgagor himself be in such case to be let into a  redemption upon payment of the mortgage money only so Jones v smith Ves jun  though possible there may be some difference as to the rule of the court  between a mortgagors come to redeem and a mortgagee bring his bill to  foreclose vide Morrett v pask atk archer v snatt stram anon ves