ambler case PROBERT against Clifford that may wife shall not have satisfaction  against devisee for paraphernalia lib Reg b foe S c cap ms tot verb atk Cox p  wms n question whether the wife who be oblige after her husband death to  permit his executor to sell her paraphernalia for payment of her husband debt  shall be permit by circuity to receive satisfaction out of the real asset  which he have charge with payment of his debt and subject thereto have devise  the say real estate to other N B the personal estate be exhaust in payment of  his debt Lord chancellor declare that the court have decree satisfaction out  of the real asset for paraphernalia where real asset have descend and mention  the case of tip v tip wms but say that the case so adjudge have go a great way  for that the wife paraphernalia by the old law be during the husband life in  his power and as the court have not in any former instance decree the wife  satisfaction by way of circuity out of real asset against the devisee for her  paraphernalia he will not establish a precedent townsend v ash ves Northi v  Northi atk case it be by the decree declare that if the personal estate of the  testator be not sufficient for payment of the debt such deficiency be to be  raise by sale of the testator real estate liable to the specialty debt and it  be order that the master shall inquire whether any real asset of the testator  descend on his heir and if any such then that the same or a sufficient part  thereof shall be sell in the first place for payment of the debt and if that  shall not be sufficient then that the devise estate or a sufficient part  thereof shall be sell for the same purpose and such devise estate to  contribute in proportion and as to the claim of the plaintiff the wife in  respect of her paraphernalia his lordship declare that she be entitle to a  satisfaction for the same out of such part of the testator real asset descend  upon his heir at law as shall remain after payment of the debt l r it appear  from the register book that the husband real estate be by the will charge only  with the sum of pound in favour of the wife and with his legacy in case of a  deficiency of the personal estate and not with debt as state in the text and  the form of the decree show that the real estate be only consider liable on  the ground of there be specialty debt this case do not therefore interfere  with the general rule lie down in other case that the wife be entitle to  marshal asset as against a devisee when the devise be subject to a trust or  charge for payment of debt Northey v Northey atk Ridout v Plymouth ib incledon  v Northcote atk Roynton v Packhurst bro c c see roper hush wife p d edit in  note by Mr Jacob that the wife may marshal asset as against the heir see tip v  tip p wms and Nelson v Corbett atk