case the case of the creditor of sir Charles cox sir Joseph Jekyll master of  the roll Eq can ab pl pl pl one possess of a term for year mortgage it and die  leave debt some by bind and some by simple contract the equity of redemption  be equitable asset and shall be liable to all the debt equal another part of  this case be reserve for the further consideration of the court and be as  follow sir Charles Cox possess of a term for year make a mortgage thereof and  die possess of the equity of redemption of the say mortgage and leave great  debt sue from he at his death than his estate will extend to pay whereupon the  question be whether this mere equity of redemption be peer William only  equitable asset and distributable equal pro rata among all the creditor  without regard to the degree or quality of their debt or whether it shall be  apply in a course of administration in which last case the bind creditor will  swallow up all the asset without leave any thing for the simple contract  creditor and his honour after time take to consider of it deliver his opinion  with solemnity that this equity of redemption be equitable asset only the  mortgage be forfeit at law and the whole estate thereby vest in the mortgagee  and it be peer William er p now become precarious and doubtful whether it will  prove worth redeem also for that the quantum of the money due on the mortgage  be uncertain forasmuch as when the executor of the mortgagor shall be admit to  redeem they must pay cost which in equity be considerable so that it can now  be know what the surplus money on the redemption will amount to upon the  account take wherefore this right of redemption be bare a equitable interest  it be reasonable to construe it equitable asset and consequent distributable  among all the creditor pro rata without have respect to the degree or quality  of their debt all debt be in a conscientious regard equal and equality the  high equity accord it be so decree see vern Morgan v Lord Sherrard second the  court declare that where a bind be due to a but take in the name of b in trust  for a and a die this must be pay in a course of administration Wilson v  Fielding vern for in such case there can hardly be any dispute touch the  quantum of the debt see the peer William principal interest and also the cost  must be pay to the obligee in the bind whereas in the other case the cost must  be pay by the party come to redeem for the same reason if a term for year be  take in the name of b in trust for a this on the death of a the beneficiary  and trust will be legal asset for here the right to the thing be plain and if  the trustee contest it he must prima fancy do it on the peril of pay cost  three the court apprehend that if a simple contract creditor on behalf of  himself and the rest of the creditor be to bring a bill and obtain a decree  that he and the rest of the creditor shall come in before the master and be  pay all their debt and that a advertisement be put in the gazette for that  purpose here any bind creditor come in on the foot of the decree shall be pay  only pro rata with the simple contract creditor for his come in imply a  submission to the decree and this be think to be clear but fourthly the court  incline to hold further that if such bind creditor will lie by have notice of  the decree and advertisement in the gazette notwithstanding every one be in  many case oblige to take notice of a lie to hang and after such lie by shall  bring his action at law against the executor or administrator of the obligor  though at law the latter may not be able to defend himself yet his honour  think that in this case a equity will arise in favour of such executor or  administrator and of the simple contract creditor to compel the bind creditor  to come in and accept of a proportion of his debt rateably with the simple  contract peer William creditor a to the three and four point it have be since  settle otherwise vide morris v bank of England can tempt Tal but however  strong his honour incline to be of this opinion he say it be no part of his  judgement nevertheless he declare he shall always do his utmost to extend the  rule of distribute equitable asset equal among all creditor see vern shepherd  v ken this resolution be communicate to I by the master of the roll himself  Jan the title of the cause be Spencer v Cox Reg lib b fol and be probable the  same cause as Spencer v biffin cite in atk be it appear by the register book  that biffin be the maiden name of sir Charles second wife at the hear of the  cause of north v Cox and Spencer v Cox in mich it be order among other thing  that in take the account thereby direct the master shall distinguish which be  legal and which be equitable asset of sir Charles Cox and that such as be  legal asset shall be apply in a course of administration and such as be  equitable shall be apply acquire step in pay the testator debt not satisfy out  of the legal asset but such of the creditor as shall receive any satisfaction  out of the legal asset be not to receive any thing towards satisfaction of the  remainder of their debt out of the equitable asset until all the other  creditor of the say testator except Hinton andhis wife who be the second wife  of sir Charles Cox as abovementioned shall out of the equitable asset receive  towards satisfaction of their respective dent so much as will make their up  equal in proportion to their respective debt with the creditor who have  receive out of the legal asset and the consideration of cost be reserve Reg  lib b fol No further order except the confirmation of a separate report appear  to have be make in these cause until hit term when the master general report  be confirm Reg lib b fol upon look into the master report it appear that the  only two peer William er p creditor be in equal degree the master decline to  distinguish which be legal and which be equitable asset so that the point be  not in fact determine Hartwell v chitters Amb rest whole on the suppose  authority of this case see also in sharp v earl of Scarborough Ves the  solicitorgeneral Mitfords remark upon the principal case and Hartwell v  chitters but in clay v Willis b c Bayley I cite those case as authority though  as the equity of redemption in clay v Willis be of a freehold estate the point  as to leasehold estate do not come in question on the other hand it have be  decide that chattel whether real or personal mortgage or pledge by the  testator and redeem by the executor shall be asset at law in the hand of the  executor for so much as they be worth beyond the sum pay for their redemption  though recoverable only in equity Hawkins v law leo Harcourt v Wrenham or  Harwood v Wrayman more roll Rep brown roll ab Alexander v lady Graham leo