case Searle versus lane in court Lord chancellor Sabbati Nov Eq can ab pl S c  a administrator pay a debt by bind before a debt due by a decree have no  notice of the decree this be a mispayment and the administrator must pay the  debt by the decree on a rehear the case be that the defendant be administrator  to one Hayman as be principal debtor have pay debt by bind and simple contract  without notice of a decree which the plaintiff have obtain against the  intestate for a sum of money upon the former hear the court have decree the  defendant though he have full administer the asset to pay the plaintiff the  debt decree to he against the intestate now upon the rehear it be by Mr  pollexfen and Mr Keck of counsel with the plaintiff insist among other thing  that it be the rigour of the law and top law that charge a administrator for  payment of debt of a inferior nature when he have not notice of any debt of a  high degree and that rigour of the law ought not to be carry on against  conscience in a court of equity and what ground be there for a court of  conscience to charge a defendant that have be in no default he have no notice  of this decree and can not divine that there be any debt owe of a superior  nature and if he shall have refuse to pay a debt of a inferior nature expect  to hear of what he know nothing of he must have pay cost for such delay and  neglect of payment of the money out of his own purse and beside the defendant  here be administrator only as be principal creditor and so stand not in the  same degree of privity as a executor or other relation may have be and  therefore not have notice Vernon chancery case of the plaintiff demand it will  be against conscience to charge he with it and contrary to regular equity and  the measure which the court take in other case as in the case of a trust  though the court will support it and compel a execution of it as far as may be  do with equity yet the court will never charge a purchaser that have no notice  of the trust and it be considerable also in this case that the decree which  the plaintiff obtain against Hayman the intestate be by default when Hayman  abscond and be go so that the plaintiff debt be never contest and be matter of  account and there be little if any thing real due per cur there be nothing  more frequent in practice or better know than that a decree of this court be  equal to a judgement at law Harding v edge ante vol Martin v Martin ves and  the fill of a bill in this court equal to the fill of a original at law to  prevent the alienation of asset and therefore the defendant have do as much  wrong in this case by payment of a bind debt when there be a decree as if he  have do it where there have be a judgement at law and the have notice or not  notice be not material in either case and be notice to be a ingredient in the  case it be less requisite in the case of a decree than in the case of a  judgement for that there be but few court of equity but very many court of law  and yet a judgement even in a court of piepowder will be bind in such case so  that it be much easy to discover whether there be a decree against a man than  whether there be a judgement against he or not but if the decree in this case  pass by default there may be some colour to have the reality of the plaintiff  debt examine as at law in a escape against the marshal the gaoler shall have  the prisoner equity and may give in evidence the poverty of the prisoner c and  therefore the court incline to let the administrator in this case contest the  reality of the plaintiff Vernon chancery case debt but it appear Vernon  chancery case er p that the original suit between the defendant and the  intestate have long depend and have be contest and do not pass by default the  court therefore confirm the former decree Reg lib b fol vide ante S c