case king v king and ennis on a appeal from a decree at the roll Lord  chancellor Talbot mos Eq can ab pl pl a equity of redemption of a copyhold may  be devise without be surrender to the use of the will every mortgage though no  covenant or bind to pay the money imply a loan and every loan imply a debt  therefore a heir of a mortgagor shall compel a application of the personal  estate to pay off a mortgage notwithstanding there be no covenant c from the  mortgagor the bill be that a mortgage make by the testator of a copyhold  devise to his nephew may be discharge out of the personal estate of the  testator and if that not sufficient out of the rest of the real estate the  testator Thomas king seize in fee of some freehold land and also of some  copyhold land in hackney in Middlesex have mortgage the copyhold for pound to  the defendant Ennis who be admit upon the say mortgage peer William the  testator make his will date the first of July whereby recite that he have  surrender the copyhold to the use of his will he devise the copyhold premise  to his nephew the plaintiff and his heir and after all his debt pay he devise  all the rest and residue of his estate real and personal to his son the  defendant thong as king and his heir leave his say son executor the plaintiff  the nephew bring his bill against the testator son and the mortgagee set forth  that there be a bind forth payment of the mortgage money which the mortgagee  by his answer confess and note this bind be admit at the hear at the roll and  the word of the will be that after all the testator debt pay the rest and  residue of all his real and personal estate shall go to his son this be say to  import that till all the debt be pay nothing be devise to such son see Harris  v Ingledew ante or that when the debt shall be pay then and then only he shall  be entitle to the residue of the testator real and personal estate whereupon  his honour decree that first the personal estate shall go to pay off this  mortgage debt and afterward the real estate devise to the son and then the  rend and profit of the real estate that have be receive by the son since the  father death and now upon a appeal by the defendant the son he do not bring  the mortgagee to hear and it be neither prove that the testator have surrender  the copyhold to the use of his will nor that there be any bind or covenant for  the payment of the money consequent it be object saint that the copyhold be  not well devise by the will peer William and dly that this be no debt and in  the case of the Southsea loan it have be solemnly determine that the borrower  be not personal peer William er p liable to pay the money borrow and that in  the case now under consideration a very great hardship be endeavour to be  throw upon a only son who be he to pay this mortgage debt will be leave  destitute wherefore the demand be not to be favour in equity to which it be  answer and so rule by the court that where a copyholder have mortgage his  copyhold and the mortgagee be admit by where the mortgagee be not admit do v  Wroot east Kenebel v scrafton Ves as in the present case the mortgagor not  have the legal estate of the copyhold in he have no estate that he can  surrender and therefore may devise the copyhold premise without any surrender  as to the second point the court be of opinion that every mortgage imply a  loan and every loan imply a debt and that though there be no covenant not bind  yet there personal estate of the borrower of course remain liable to pay off  the mortgage and for this be cite a decree of the Lord Harcourt in the case of  the mortgage of a ship where the ship be take at sea and there be no covenant  for payment of the money and though the ship can not proper be say to be in  nature of a pawn or depositum since the mortgagor have sail with the same to  sea nevertheless the executor of the mortgagor be decree to pay the money for  which the ship be mortgage which case the Lord chancellor say he well remember  and that it be so in the case of Welsh mortgage where no day certain peer  William be appoint for the payment but the matter leave at large vol and that  with regard to what have be say of the Southsea loan it have be always take  that the company give credit to the stock only that be pledge and take no  notice of nor make the leastenquiry after the ability or circumstance of the  borrower but depend entire upon the stock wherefore the decree of the roll be  affirm upon these two point videlicet that one may devise a equity of  redemption of a mortgage of a copyhold without have surrender it to the use of  the will and also that every mortgage imply a debt for which the mortgagors  personal estate be liable although there be no bind or covenant for the  payment of the mortgage money vide Howel v price ante vol m Reg lib a fol and  fol et vide Serle v saint eloy ante vol Galton v Hancock atk marchioness of  Tweedale v earl of Coventry bro c c Philips v Philips bro c c Ashley v earl of  Tankerville bro c c the same point be determine inter all in the case of  Strudwicke v Strudwicke by the Lord chancellor Parker Paschce so Greenhill v  Greenhill vern Macei v Shurmer atk Tuffnell v page atk and Barnard S g car v  ellison atk Allen v Poulton l ves Macnamara v Jones bro C C smith v triggs Str  do v Vernon east Wainewright v Elwell mad and see Harris v Ingledew ante n as  to the effectof the stat g c