ambler e Hawkins against day ante p payment by executor of simple contract  debt before breach of condition of bind be good but payment of legacy be not  hark ms Num p Lord chancellor there be two exception take for the plaintiff  and one for the defendant the master have disallow payment to the defendant  the executor in the account because they be not a good administration against  the plaintiff this be a demand by specialty and the payment be make upon debt  by simple contract the defendant exception be that the master have disallow  payment as be debt of a inferior nature though make many year before breach of  the covenant in the bind set up by the plaintiff upon this arise two question  saint whether the payment in this case before a breach of the condition of a  specialty for performance of covenant in the indenture of on demand of simple  contract debt and legacy ought to be allow as good against the plaintiff d  whether in law or equity payment of debt of a inferior nature as simple  contract debt or legacy before the executor have notice of bind debt or  specialty though the covenant be break be good it be insist that it will be a  hardship on executor not to allow they on the other side the executor be  necessary under hardship by the strict rule of law without redress court of  equity can deliver executor from the rule of law upon equitable principle but  the difficulty executor be necessary expose to ought not to be increase and  this weigh with I in consider this case the first question have be establish  for above a hundred ambler year if a conusor or obligor die leave simple  contract debt and the covenant be not break and consequent no debt accrue upon  a breach it be a good administration to pay simple contract debt harrison case  here the doubt be from what time the breach be to be consider as compute ita  in the mrs from when he abscond it be a breach of the condition and to the  partnership and at law the whole penalty be forfeit upon assignment of the  breach but suppose the breach to be take from the account state in I will  still confine the validity of the payment to the case of the debt they say  payment to legatee shall be good it be true that it be the old doctrine that  the legatee shall give the executor security to refund if debt afterward  appear Deeks v strut t r chamberlain v chamberlain Ch can but that be not now  give way to and therefore in modern case creditor have be allow in this court  to follow asset in the hand of legatee as well as of the executor to avoid the  difficulty of be oblige to give security to refund in the case of contingent  debt in trade if there be a prospect of damnification the court will direct  the master to consider what part of the asset be proper to be set aside to  indemnify a executor in covenant in lease and purchase of remote expectation  the court will not do it but will and have do it in case of partnership which  be liable to great contingency suppose Benjamin lane have be surety to the  crown or receiver to the crown and a application have be make by the executor  to see what asset shall be set apart to indemnify he it will have be take care  of in the decree and therefore I be of opinion that as to the payment ambler  before any breach of covenant to simple contract creditor they be good in law  though t he payment to the legatee be not d I be of opinion that payment by a  executor fair and good fide make to ambler er p simple contract creditor  though make after the breach of covenant be good administration in law and  this upon consider the case roll incline to this opinion because the law take  notice of the security that spiritual court compel to refund on such  contingent charge take effect and that prohibition have be refuse Bacon wear  down eales v Lambert Aylm Davis v monkhouse lev c b hill Geo by the opinion of  Eyre c I who be a good commonlawyer and a rigid one too and all the court  agree that a plea upon a judgement upon simple contract though the money be  not pay be a good defence against debt upon bind lev case of a judgement by  confession it not be find that the defendant have notice at the time of the  judgement confess to a simple contract creditor the payment shall be good just  Levintz be against it all man for it be never know that a want of notice of  specialty debt be sufficient to support debt on simple contract Lord c I  pemberton authority be of great weight and follow by the whole court of common  plea in Davis and monkhouse it be say that the case of Davis and monkhouse  proceed on a mistake for that in Vaughan Mod it be say that judgement on a  simple contract shall defend he against specialty debt but not where no  judgement be recover for judgement be in invititm but the distinction be not a  sound one and tend to nothing but vexation and expense if payment of simple  contract be good upon judgement obtain and not in pais the consequence be that  executor will not venture to pay simple contract debt without a suit for fear  of judgement and cost de not common with others good saint the foundation of  want of notice be as strong in either case of a judgement or not in Levintz it  be a judgement by confession it be his own act and consent and not better than  payment in pais in the new river company and Brownjohn before Lord king it be  direct that the master shall allow ambler payment to simple contract creditor  or otherwise to executor before notice of the bind as to allow the legacy I  think it will be strange to say that legacy pay immediate where the executor  have a year allow he for the purpose shall be good against creditor but here  it be say notice be give to two coexecutors and that ought to affect the  defendant the three executor because it be probable they will give he notice  suppose the two coexecutors have be stranger to the transaction of the  partnership as the three executor be I think notice to they may affect the  three but I give no absolute opinion upon that and to say general that notice  by a specialty creditor to one of two executor where all have power over the  asset will not ita in the ms be sufficient to bind they all be too strong at  least it will be a devastavit in he to who notice be give if the executor who  have notice shall misapply the asset afterward but here the two executor  concur to conceal the notice one of they a principal and coobligor in the bind  it will have be to give notice to the other executor to call they all to  account that be too much to expect and therefore the notice to the two  coexecutors as affect the three executor be to be lie out of the case my  opinion be strengthen by a principle of general equity these be case of  hardship a man clerk to considerable dealer article to state account monthly  in a particular course of deal with two substantial person surety the oblige  take no care to see that he passes his account and keep his covenant it be a  burden on the surety by the default of the oblige it have weight though it  will not excuse in law or equity in the late case of Vernon v earl of Egmont  Bligh d series e be tenant for life under a settlement with power to lease  under certain restriction grant lease not in conformity with the power and die  leave the residue of his personalty to his son the next remainderman under the  settlement it be hold by the house of lord reverse the judgement below that as  the son have the power to disturb the lease he be bind either to confirm they  or to give indemnity to the executor and that the executor have a right to  hold the residue till he obtain the confirmation or indemnity see simmonds v  bolland mere ambler er p