case and knight widow of jacob knight decease plaintiff John knight Esq old  son of say jacob knight and other defendant Lord chancellor Talbot Eq can ab  pl a covenant for himself and his heir that a jointure house shall remain to  the use in the settlement the jointress bring a bill against the heir for a  performance the defendant demurrer for that the executor ought to be a party  resolve that though at law the creditor may sue the heir only where the heir  be express bind yet as the personal estate be the natural fund to pay all debt  and as the executor may make it appear that he have perform the covenant the  executor must be make a party in equity the bill be bring by the plaintiff the  widow of the say Jacob knight against the defendant John knight as old son and  heir of the say Jacob knight in order to compel he to rebuild and finish the  plaintiff jointure house and to make satisfaction for the damage which she  have sustain for want of the use thereof and set forth that upon the marriage  of the plaintiff by a settlement bear date the that of February Jacob knight  the defendant father settle the capital message in together with land of pound  per annum in the county of Gloucester to the use of himself for life without  waste remainder to the use of his wife for life remainder to the use of the  first c son of the marriage in tail male successive with remainder over that  by the say settlement the defendant peer William father Jacob knight covenant  for himself and his heir with his say wife trustee that the capital message  and premise shall remain to the use in the settlement without any act do or to  be do by the say Jacob knight to the contrary that the say Jacob knight the  defendant father do some time afterward pull down great part of the say  capital message and that he have issue by the plaintiff the defendant his old  son and that he afterward die leave real asset of great value to descend to  his son the defendant and that the plaintiff after her husband death the say  capital message not be inhabitable be force to hire another house for her  habitation and therefore bring this bill to compel the defendant to rebuild or  repair the say capital message and likewise that she the plaintiff may be  recompense in damage for what she have suffer by be force to hire another  house in lieu of her jointurehouse as to such part of the bill as pray that he  shall rebuild or repair so much of the say capital message as his father have  pull down as aforesaid or which seek to be repair in damage for want of the  use thereof and in respect of the plaintiff be force to hire another house in  its stead the defendant demurrer and for cause show that there be no executor  or administrator of the plaintiff late husband bring before the court by the  bill or make a party thereto upon the demurrer come on to be argue before the  Lord chancellor it be object that at lacy in the case of any demand where the  heir be express bind the creditor have a election to sue the heir alone or the  executor or administrator of the debtor and if it be so at law the same peer  William rule may well be allow to prevail in this court which ought not to put  the creditor upon the difficulty of hunt after personal asset not recoverable  in all probability without charge and expense of time peer William er p and  therefore as the heir be liable alone to answer this debt at law so he ought  to be in equity and may reimburse himself as well as he can by sue the  executor or administrator of the debtor in order thereto say curian contra it  be true that at law the creditor may sue the heir only where he be express  bind but equity be otherwise on the contrary in equity the creditor may sue  both the heir and the executor which they can do at law so that the rule of  law and equity be different the natural fund for the payment of debt be the  personal estate and this ought to go in ease of the land it do not appear in  the principal case but that the executor or administrator may have make  satisfaction to the plaintiff for the breach of this covenant which the  executor c may have disclose to the court have he be a party to the bill peer  William now the court of equity in all case delight to do complete justice and  not by half as first to decree the heir to perform this covenant and then to  put the heir upon another bill against the executor to reimburse himself out  of the personal asset which for aught appear to the contrary may be more than  sufficient to answer the covenant and where the executor and heir be both  bring before the court complete justice may be do by decree the executor to  perform this covenant as far as the personal asset will extend the rest to be  make good by the heir out of the real asset and here appear no difficulty or  inconvenience in bring the executor before the court on the contrary it will  prevent a multiplicity of suit which a court of equity ought to do ante  wherefore allow the demurrer plunket v Penson atk and see Humphreys v  Humphreys post in a bill bring by a mortgagee against the heir of a mortgagor  to foreclose it be object that the executor of the mortgagor ought to be a  party because it do not appear but that he may have pay the debt but by the  master of the roll in the absence of the Lord chancellor and Goldsborough the  register there be no necessity for make the executor of the mortgagor a party  fall v brown bro c c so though the mortgage be only for a term of year  Bradshaw v Outram Ves m but if the bill be for a sale the personal  representative of the mortgagor must be a party Daniel v Skipwith bro c g  MDonough v Shewbridge ba and be Christopher v spark I and W because the bill  be only to foreclose the equity the plaint need only make he a party that have  the equity videlicet the heir and the course be so neither be the plaintiff  the mortgagee any way bind to intermeddle with the personal estate or to run  into a account thereof and if the heir will have the benefit of any payment  make by the mortgagor or his executor he must prove it Duncombe v Hansley  pasch so note the diversity between the case above report of knight v knight  and this last for there the bill be to recover satisfaction in damage for want  of repair c and the personal estate be the natural fund for that purpose but  here the bill be not to recover the debt but only to bar the equity of  redemption