case walker versus meager at the chancellor house Lord chancellor eoden die S  c p wms Mr solicitor general for the plaintiff Mr meager make his will inter  all in these word as to my temporal estate I do hereby charge the same with  the payment of all such just debt as I shall happen to owe at the time of my  decease and also with the several legacy herein after bequeathe then he give  several legacy and particular pound to his daughter then take notice that he  have surrender his copyhold estate to the use of his will he declare it to be  to the purpose follow subject to and charge copyhold estate to my son Thomas  meager and his heir subject to and Chargeable with all my just debt and the  several legacy by I give and make his son Thomas executor and on a bill bring  by the creditor a account be decree and a report have be make and the cause  now come before your lordship on the equity reserve and the only question be  since the estate be not sufficient to satisfy the debt and legacy whether the  money arise by the sale of the land shall be divide equal among the creditor  and legatee or whether the creditor shall be prefer and as in natural mosely  report justice the testator ought to pay his debt in the first place so it  plain seem by the will to have be his intention though he have not declare so  in express word in the beginning of the will he charge all his temporal estate  with the payment of his just debt c and also with the several legacy c which  word seem to introduce a second charge and this further appear from the nature  of the fund he have then in view his personal estate which be the fund subject  by law be liable to his debt in the first place and when he add another not  Chargeable by law he show he will have his debt and legacy pay out of this  additional fund in the same manner then he make his son who he devise his  estate to executor likewise and if he have devise it to he to sell for payment  of debt and legacy the money will be asset and the debt must be prefer vern  greaves versus Powel and Beak versus brown Trin term the testator before the  statute of king W of fraudulent devise bequeathe his land mosely report er p  to his second son and his heir subject to the payment of such debt as his  personal estate shall not be sufficient to satisfy and of a legacy of pound  and make his second son and wife executor this devise be before the statute  the debt amount to more than the personal estate and the value of the land the  bind creditor have no lie but by the will but Lord Harcourt say he will  suppose the testator to mean what he ought and that he design to be just  before he be heritable and therefore decree the debt to be pay in the first  place vern Chan Cas Mr attorney general for the defendant if this money raise  by the sale of the estate shall be apply in the first place to the payment of  the debt the daughter will be leave whole unprovide for it be allow there be  no express word in the will direct the debt to be first pay but they will  infer it to have be the intention of the testator first from the order of the  word but the order of the word have never be allow a rule to explain the  intention of the testator which shall be first pay for all thing can be say  together and also c do not imply a secondary consideration vern as have be  often adjudge in the case of legatee but that the first legatee must abate in  proportion with the second and suppose legacy have be first mention shall they  have be pay in the first place second because the testator have his whole  estate under consideration and therefore as his personal estate be to go in a  course of administration it be plain he design his real estate shall go in the  same manner but one must go as the law direct the other as the will mosely  report three because if this devise have be to his executor to sell the money  will have be legal asset but this be a devise in fee subject to c and be only  a equitable charge and the executor in this case can be consider only as a  trustee for the devise be to he in fee who be the old son of the testator the  land descend on he and it be not a constant rule to prefer creditor but there  be many decree that they shall be pay acquire step with legatee because as to  the land the creditor take only by the bounty of the testator and it be only a  legacy to he vern though the devise in Beak and brown case be before the  statute so that the devisor have a power to defeat his bind creditor of the  benefit of his land yet he not have do so the court may think proper to  consider they in the same manner as they will have be entitle if the land have  descend Lord chancellor from a view of the whole will there appear to be no  prius or later nor which it be the intention of the testator shall be first  pay the debt or legacy but it be plain he intend the one as well as the other  all his estate be give to his executor and his copyhold estate be particular  surrender to the use of his will and his whole estate be make subject to debt  and legacy and be give to his executor to enable he to pay they so whether the  money arise by the sale of the land be legal or equitable asset it must be  consider as legal asset and apply in a course of administration if beneficiary  and trust of a estate devise it to his executor to be sell for payment of debt  and legacy this be equitable asset and yet it have often be decree to be apply  in a course of administration Ant Cas Cas post Cas vern vern Chan Cas vern lev  Nels Fol Rep in canc Nels vo Rep in canc Ant Cas mosely report Friday October  the that