case MAYEW versus copping at the chancellor house Lord chancellor the heir can  redeem without pay the mortgage money and the money due by bind too Mr  solicitor general for the defendant this be a appeal from a decree of the  master of the bolls and the only question be whether a mortgagee who be also a  creditor by bind shall foreclose the voluntary assignee of the heir at law  unless he pay the money due on the bind the mortgagor himself may redeem pay  only the mortgage money unless it be agree that the mortgage shall stand as a  security for the money due on the bind the heir indeed must pay both not  because the bind be a real lie on the estate but to prevent a circuity of  action because the equity of redemption be asset in equity by descent but if  the heir convey away the land before a bill be file or a action commence  against he and it do not appear that this bill be bring before the alienation  of the heir to a purchaser by the of W the purchaser be not liable but only  the heir and so if he make a voluntary conveyance the heir only must answer  but here the heir be not bring to a hear and it do not appear that he be  insolvent and the plaintiff ought to receive no further help than the statute  give he and this assignment can be within the statute of Elizabeth for it can  be say to be make to defraud his creditor but his father and before the of W m  though a man bind himself and his heir in a bind he may defeat his creditor by  a voluntary devise of the land Lord chancellor suppose before the statute one  sue the heir on a bind and he plead a alienation before the action be bring  and produce a voluntary conveyance in evidence will not the jury have find  that to be fraudulent and the statute mosely report er p of Q Elizabeth make  such conveyance void the obligor himself before the statute may devise the  land because they be not bind in his hand and this be a mortgage in fee so the  equity of redemption be not asset at law but in equity only the mortgagee file  a bill of foreclosure which must be consider in the same manner as to the heir  as if he have bring a bill to redeem which he can not have do without pay off  both debt the heir have transfer his right without a consideration be not such  a assignment fraudulent the mosely report defendant be not a alienee at law  the plaintiff come into this court to get nothing from he and he can redeem  but on the same term with the heir so the decree must be reverse N B the  master of the roll decree the defendant to redeem on pay the mortgage money  only because the plaintiff have not make a case of it or insist on the statute  vern Chan Cas Chan Cas vern salk Cas Thursday December the that