atkins case STILEMAN versus ashdown June a rehear S c Amb ante Lord Hardwicke  be of the same opinion he be at the former hear affirm the decree he make on  the that Dec the single point here be whether a judgement creditor shall have  the whole real asset descend upon the heir of the conusor sell to satisfy his  debt or only a moiety be oblige to come into this court to set aside a  fraudulent conveyancer atkins er p this cause be hear the that of December and  the chancellor be then of opinion that only a moiety of the real asset shall  be sell Mr attorney general be counsel for the heir at law and executor the  statute of Westminster he say which give the elegit mean no more than to give  the judgement creditor a election to come upon the land of conusor for one  moiety of his debt and as to the other moiety upon the personal estate of the  conusor the present defendant be bind no otherwise than as terretenant suppose  this be the case of a mortgagee will the court do it to his prejudice if the  court will not do it in that case why will they do it against a heir at law  the case cite on the other side do not come up to the present purpose the  first case be Compton versus Pigot before Lord Harcourt the that of December  there a bill be bring by a judgement creditor against a executor and the heir  at law to have the personal estate apply first and if not sufficient then the  real estate to be sell the word of the decree there to have the whole real  asset sell liable to the judgement may admit of this doubt whether the decree  do not confine it to such asset as be only liable to the judgement and not to  all asset descend upon the heir he cite two case as in point for the defendant  in Lord chancellor king time Harvey versus Woodhouse October FitzGibb Sel can  Charles S c and fish versus Burdos the February follow Lord chancellor have it  not be for the case of Compton versus Pigot I shall have think it very clear  for the heir at law the judgement affect the land as it be bind by the  judgement atkins equity follow the law in this case and as the plaintiff can  extend only a moiety there he shall have no more here it appear to I in this  light suppose it be in the case of a bind creditor he may have a action of  debt against the heir and judgement against he upon asset descend and this he  be entitle to at commonlaw for it be the debt of the heir stonehewer v  Thompson ante and the action be in the debet to hold off kinaston v clerk ante  dyer b but against the executor only ink the to hold off and the heir can  discharge himself no otherwise than by plead riens per descent but if a  judgement be obtain against the ancestor a to know facias can not be bring  against the heir because at commonlaw the heir be not bind and there be no  instance before the statute of Westminster of a to know facias bring against  the heir on such judgement obtain against the ancestor there be no doubt but  if it have continue a bind the whole asset will have be liable in the hand of  the heir Higgins v York building company ante but before the statute of  Westminster there be no remedy against the ancestor in his lifetime upon a  judgement on his land and it be that statute subject one moiety thereof to the  judgement creditor the consequence of this be that notwithstanding the  ancestor be dead if the land come into the hand of the heir or purchaser it  come equal bind in what right then be the to know facias bring against the  heir or purchaser why only as terretenants and by virtue of the statute vide  Herbert case   b dyer a pl ibidem a pl I think of the objection myself that a  bind creditor will be in a better condition than a judgement creditor and so  he be for as soon as the bind debt be turn into a judgement it be extinct  against the ancestor and the creditor can in the lifetime of the ancestor  bring any action upon the bind can he then bring a action against the heir  after it be entire extinct but still he obtain a great advantage by a  judgement as it give he a opportunity of bind the land immediate and likewise  give he a preference over all other bind creditor and therefore the creditor  prefer this real advantage to a precarious one of asset descend upon the heir  after the death of the ancestor atkins if this be the case at law what be  there in equity to better his case why nothing more than to accelerate the  payment by direct a sale of the moiety and not let the judgement creditor wait  till he have be pay out of the rend and profit but equity can change the right  of the party as to the case of Pigot versus Compton perhaps it be not consider  sufficient atkins er p or beside a moiety in that case when sell may perhaps  be enough to discharge the judgement the decree be affirm and the deposit  order to be deliver to the defendant