case greenwood and BRUDNISH Eq Abr c S c wms atk a executor or administrator  pay away the asset in satisfy simple contract debt can have no relief in  equity against a bind debt although they have no notice of it in September  John sayer make a mortgage for pound to one bishop the defendant testator in  October sayer die intestate and the plaintiff without take out letter of  administration possess herself of his personal estate and pay it all away in  satisfy debt on simple contract bishop die have make his will and the  defendant executor who prove the same and be in possession of the mortgage  premise after in on look into several old paper and write the plaintiff find a  will of William sayer the grandfather of the mortgagor whereby these land be  give to his son in tail and on search no fine or recovery appear to be levy or  suffer of those land they be advice the mortgage be not good and in  consequence thereof John sayer the plaintiff old son by her first husband who  be heir in tail bring his ejectment and recover possession of the mortgage  premise whereupon the defendant be thus evict and have a bind for performance  of covenantsin the mortgagedeed put it in suit against the plaintiff precedent  in chancery er p and now this bill be bring for a injunction to stay the  defendant proceed at law on pretence that they have pay away all the testator  asset before they have any manner of notice whatsoever of this bind and that  the defendant never give they notice of precedent in chancery it and therefore  they ought not to be Chargeable with a devastavit to this bill the defendant  demurrer for that of their own show it appear that asset come to their own  hand more than sufficient to pay and satisfy this bind and that it also appear  by their own show that they pay away these in satisfy debt on simple contract  and of a inferior nature and that be to introduce a course of administration  contrary to commonlaw and the demurrer be hold to be clear good and the bill  reject as a attempt to alter the course of law but if any extraordinary fraud  have be charge on the defendant by which the plaintiff have be deceive or  induce to pay away the asset that may have vary the case