case in chancery tiffin contra tiffin Feb vide post Chan Cas lessee for year  owner of the inheritance in trust for he and his heir devise the land but the  will not sign by he the heir have a decree for the term land in question be  mortgage for year and purchase by a b from the mortgagor the conveyance be of  the feesimple to a b and the mortgage lease to friend in trust for a b case in  chancery er p then a b make his will after the month of June the will be  attest by three witness accord to the statute but he die before it be sign by  himself the devise be to his wife and make her executrix and leave her asset  enough to pay his debt as be allege by the plaintiff but deny by the wife be  counsel but no proof as to that be read on either side the bill be by the heir  against the trustee and wife to have the term assure with the inheritance  because by the original purchase the term be to wait on the inheritance in  equity which inheritance do not pass by the will the object though in case of  land the testator may sign the will else void yet in case of personal estate a  nuncupative will be good and no subscription be require by the statute and  this will be accord prove by the wife in the ecclesiastical court and there  man be debt for ought appear whereto this lease shall be liable the plaintiff  counsel cite the opinion of hale chief justice who take a difference between  the case the testator original purchase keep the lease sever from the  inheritance to preserve it from encumbrance and where himself after purchase  of the fee make a long lease to wait on the inheritance Lord chancellor say I  will neither make a lease for year that wait upon the inheritance where it be  not asset in law to be asset to pay debt in equity and where a long lease  shall wait upon the inheritance the inheritance be in trust in other man and  the long lease in the purchaser and the purchaser die indebt so that the term  in law will come to the executor and be asset to creditor there I will not  make it no asset in equity Mr Keck offer reason with that difference Churchill  the say it be the ancient difference of the court Lord chancellor affirm the  difference case in chancery then Keck object that here be a plain intention of  the testator that his wife shall have it and the will though not sign be a  good declaration of a trust of a term though not sign by the party because  such a will be good as to a chattel by the statute Lord chancellor decree for  the plaintiff against the will and say else the statute will be of little  effect for most estate have lease extent or judgement wait on to protect the  inheritance c and if they shouldbe divide from the inheritance by a will not  sign by the testator the StatLite will be of little effect in this case I be  not a counsel but remember the case of Nurss and Yarworth resolve by his  lordship which in reason I think be contrary to the reason of this case for  there a will which be void as to the inheritance yet be make good as to the  lease that wait upon the inheritance and the case there be somewhat strong  because the devisee of the land be plaintiff there for the term against the  trustee of the term and the heir but be here defendant continue Chan Cas