case nugent v Gifford and other November that doubt Wilson v more my king SC  Ves cite a executor assign over a mortgage term of his testator to a as a  satisfaction of a debt due to a from the executor this be a good alienation  and a shall have the benefit of it against the daughter of the testator who be  creditor under a marriage settlement the authority of nugent v Gifford seem  confirm by the follow case ewer v Corbet p W Elliot v Merriman post vol mead v  Lord orrery post vol ithel v bean Ves jacomb v Harwood Ves bonny v Ridgard bro  Charles Rep bro Charles Rep cite whale v booth durn east note Andrew v Wrigley  bro Charles Rep see also Langley v Oxford Amb the bill be bring against some  of the defendant as trustee of a mortgage term for a assignment and against  other to discover what interest they have in the premise it appear that the  mortgage in question be a mortgage term to trustee in trust for sir Richard  Billings the testator and Mr Arundel executor of sir Richard have assign this  mortgage term to the plaintiff as a satisfaction for a debt due from Mr  Arundel to the plaintiff the question be if such assignment be good against  the daughter of sir Richard Billings who be creditor under the marriage  settlement and also to who the trustee shall assign the legal estate Lord  chancellor the question be if the two daughter who be allow to be creditor be  entitle to follow this mortgage term in the hand of the plaintiff as assignee  of it as specific asset atkins er p I be of opinion they be not but that the  plaintiff be entitle to the benefit of such assignment by the executor at law  the executor have a power to dispose of and alien the asset of the testator  but it seem that a testator good can be take under a execution for a debt of  the executor see far v Newman durn east and when they be alien no creditor by  law can follow they for the demand of a creditor be only a personal demand  against the executor in respect of the asset come to his hand but no lie on  the asset this court will indeed atkins follow asset upon voluntary alienation  by collusion of the executor crane v drake vern Taner v ivy Ves and see the  case cite above in note but if the alienation be for a valuable consideration  unless fraud be prove this court suffer it as well as at law and will not  control it for a purchaser from a executor have no power of know the debt of  the testator and if this court upon the appearance of debt afterward will  control such purchaser no body will venture to deal with executor it be object  first that these be the equitable asset of sir Richard Billings and that the  plaintiff purchase nothing but a equitable interest burden with all the equity  in the hand of the person from who he purchase see scot v tiler bro Charles  Rep where the question whether a equitable assignment of a specific legacy by  a executor for his own private debt be bind be much agitate but that point end  in a compromise but that be a rule only where there be a lie on the thing  itself and I know no difference in this court between the power of a executor  to dispose of equitable and legal asset the second objection be that the  assignee take this assignment with notice that it be the testamentary asset of  sir Richard Billings but if this be sufficient to affect it it will affect  every purchase from a executor because every such purchaser must have such  notice the three objection be that this be a devastavit because the  consideration be a debt of the executor own but I know no rule in this court  to warrant that neither be there any difference between this and money pay  down provide it be do good fide a sum of money good fide due vide Hodgson v  Dand bro Charles Rep be as good and valuable consideration as any the only  authority rely on be crane v drake vern and paget v Hoskins Prec in Eq pale  yellow Rep ill S c the first great differ from the present case there be  express notice of a debt from the testator still unsatisfy and a contrivance  between the purchaser and the executor to defeat a just debt and as Lord  chancellor say the defendant be a party to and contrive a devastavit his  lordship accord to a ms report of nugent v Gifford observe that the purchaser  in crane v drake admit notice of the plaintiff debt by his answer it be so  state in the decree and the determination be right here be no notice of any  debt due from the testator for it be swear in the answer that sir Richard  Billings die worth pound and this be a debt under a settlement which be a  private transaction in the family as to the case of paget v Hoskins that be a  gross sum compute by the wife as her share of her former husband estate accord  to the custom of London and take by the husband subject to that account in the  above notice ms report his lordship say that paget v Hoskins be a clear case  and he wonder my Lord Harcourt shall vary his first decree these be the only  authority and both different from the present case this I think therefore be a  good alienation and the plaintiff ought to have the benefit of it Reg lib b  fol see the master of the roll observation on this case in Andrew v Wrigley  bro Charles Rep atkins er p