case Donisthorpe and catherine his wife against porter that July owner of a  estate become entitle to a sum of money charge upon it and secure by a term of  year it shall merge in equity for the benefit of the heir at law except in  case of creditor or of infancy see Chester v will ante Wyndham v earl of  Egremont post price v Gibson Eden Forbes v Moffat Ves Astley v mill sim lib  Reg a foe S c Eden hill ms Richard porter by lease and release of that and  that June convey certain freehold estate to the use of himself for life  remainder to his wife for life remainder to trustee for year remainder to  himself in fee the trust of the term be declare to be by perception of the  profit or by mortgage or sale with all convenient speed to raise pound to be  equal distribute among the young son and son and the daughter and daughter of  the marriage and be pay to they at their respective age of twentyone or day of  marriage with a power of revocation upon Richard porter purchase and settle  other estate of the yearly value of pound in the same way Richard porter die  in without have revoke the use leave Elizabeth his wife Richard porter his  only son and Margaret his only daughter have make a will and dispose of his  personal estate but not of his real estate so that at his death the real  estate descend to his son subject to the use of the settlement who pay the  interest of the pound to his sister Elizabeth the wife die and Margaret the  daughter afterward die in July intestate leave Richard her brother and only  next of kin in October Richard porter die intestate leave Robert porter his  heir at law and the plaintiff Catherine his next of kin ambler bill to have  the pound raise ambler er p Lord Northington chancellor there be two question  saint whether the pound ought to be raise by aid of this court d if to be  raise whether it ought not to be apply to exonerate Richard porter estate of  the mortgage which he have make a debt of his own this first be a question of  consequence I do not find that the counsel have cite a decision in point yet  on ground of general practice I be perhaps better satisfy than I shall be if I  depend on authority it be a case of consequence because it may frequent happen  in family it may if determine for the plaintiff revive dormant claim in family  I think case of consolidate in right in equity be reducible to a solid  foundation I do not think it a rule that a charge upon a estate which can only  be get at by trustee and so not merge at law shall be distinct in equity and  go to the administrator while the estate go to the heir but I think where the  owner have a absolute interest in the estate and charge the charge be  annihilate for the benefit of the estate and heir the court do not consider  the subtlety of mergers but discharge the estate from the encumbrance it will  otherwise burden estate to no purpose but there be two exception first the  case of creditor arise from the power and justice of this court correct the  illiberality of law with regard to creditor videlicet that a man may die  insolvent leave a very good estate d of infant as to mergers court of law can  look into right or beneficial interest it merge S estate lie in the same  person but can where they lie in different person equity do not regard that  but look into the beneficial interest and view of party whether the estate be  strict in the same person or in different person ambler the d point be as  clear heir inherit a mortgage estate make the debt his own by covenant and  bind and a new equity of redemption and his personal estate liable to pay he  have by his own act will it so dismiss the bill parson v freeman Amb forester  v Lord leigh Amb Evelyn v Evelyn p W and note by Mr Cox