c Goree v marsh lord commissioner heir and executor creditor a a creditor by  judgement be pay by the executor out of the personal asset there not be  sufficient to satisfy other creditor whereupon they prefer their bill against  a and the heir either to compel a to take his satisfaction out of the land or  else to have the benefit of his judgement that they may be satisfy out of the  land and the court seem to incline that they will do it it will be do if at  any period of the cause it appear a specialty creditor have be pay out of the  personal estate even though the bill be not frame with that view Gibbs v  ongier Ves trim v bayne Ves post c p rather than debt shall remain unpay for  although at law a have his election to proceed for satisfaction either out of  the real or personal estate yet he ought not to be chancellor so as to be  under his power whether the debt shall be pay or not so long as he be not at  any prejudice but must have a satisfaction and Hutchins say as the heir have  many time the justice of the court for his benefit if the heir or devisee of  real estate be sue by a specialty creditor of the testator such heir or  devisee may stand in the place of that creditor to be reimburse out of the  personal estate mogg v Hodges Ves sen Pockley v Pockley vern it shall be  remember however that in Hamilton v worley Ves jun it be say this equity  subsist only between the heir or devisee of the estate and the residuary  legatee it can interfere with the disposition of other part as specific or  general legacy much less with the interest of creditor and see to the same  effect haw v Warner vern Lutkins v leigh can tempt Talb but this rule again  must be qualify by the decision in Herne v Meyrick p wms long v short ib  Clifton v burt ib and other case there cite in which it be lie down that  although as against land descend legatee may marshal the asset yet every  devisee of land be a specific legatee and shall not be break in upon or make  to contribute to a pecuniary legacy so that if specialty debt of the testator  be pay out of his personalty the legatee can come against the real estate pro  tanto the distinction be recognize by Lord Hardwicke c in Galton v Hancock atk  and in Hanby v Robert Ambl see also Keeling v brown Ves aldrich v Cooper Ves  Scott v Scott Eden so he ought likewise to be subject to the justice of the  court and this be a case for payment of debt be strong than in case of legacy  and he say it have be resolve upon great debate that where there be asset of  the personal estate and a executor make but not a residuary legatee if the  heir or devisee of real estate be sue by a specialty creditor of the testator  such heir or devisee may stand in the place of that creditor to be reimburse  out of the personal estate mogg v Hodges Ves sen Pockley v Pockley vern it  shall be remember however that in Hamilton v worley Ves jun it be say this  equity subsist only between the heir or devisee of the estate and the  residuary legatee it can interfere with the disposition of other part as  specific or general legacy much less with the interest of creditor and see to  the same effect haw v Warner vern Lutkins v leigh can tempt Talb but this rule  again must be qualify by the decision in Herne v Meyrick p wms long v short ib  Clifton v burt ib and other case there cite in which it be lie down that  although as against land descend legatee may marshal the asset yet every  devisee of land be a specific legatee and shall not be break in upon or make  to contribute to a pecuniary legacy so that if specialty debt of the testator  be pay out of his personalty the legatee can come against the real estate pro  tanto the distinction be recognize by Lord Hardwicke c in Galton v Hancock atk  and in Hanby v Robert Ambl see also Keeling v brown Ves aldrich v Cooper Ves  Scott v Scott Eden this court in case of the heir have order a debt Chargeable  upon the heir freeman to be satisfy out of the personal estate but in case of  a administrator it be never doubt but they will do it in case of the heir  freeman er p