atkins case smith versus Haskins style eyles August see Philips v Homfray Ch d  a decree quod to sum up make no variation as to a executor for before a final  decree he may confess a judgement and it do not at all alter the nature of the  demand sir John smith be concern with the late Mr Haskins style in the aulnage  duty under a lease from the duchess of Lenox and the lessee enter into article  mutual to indemnify one another sir John smith have pay pound which be the  five that Mr Haskins style ought to have pay as his share for which he bring  his bill against Mr Haskins style in his lifetime and at the hear of the cause  there be a decree that it shall be refer to a master to see what be due to sir  John smith very soon after Mr Haskins style die and by his will appoint  Francis Haskins style eyles his executor who before the master have report the  pound due to sir John smith confess a judgement to his father sir John eyles  for pound the exception be now take to the master report this judgement to be  of a prior nature to the plaintiff demand of pound under the decree to account  Mr attorney general for the exception insist that though the decree do not  ascertain the quantum of the debt yet it go so far as to alter the nature of  it and to give it the sanction of a court of equity Mr Murray on the same side  say the point be here determine in the decree for the demand be liquidate and  the direction be to take the account only for the benefit of Mr Haskins style  who be at liberty to discharge but it now come out that he be not able to set  off a single farthing so that as there be no variation but remain as it do  when the decree be make a liquidate sum it must have relation to the time of  the decree and therefore differ great from a common decree quod to sum up it  be the administration of Mr h skin style who have confess this judgement to  his own father and it will be very hard if he may thus postpone a creditor for  a certain sum to a judgement give to so near a relation there be another  circumstance for sir John smith that sir John eyles the judgement creditor  have notice of the demand and likewise of the decree and therefore lend his  money with his eye open and ought not to be prefer as he be no stranger to  this transaction Mr Ord counsel on the other side say that here be nothing in  this decree but common direction for the master to see what be due from one  party to the other and it may come out that atkins there be a balance due from  the plaintiff to the defendant and can be call a final decree till the master  report be confirm he insist likewise that it be a account to be take general  between the plaintiff and defendant and not as Mr Murray say for the defendant  only to account in answer to the point of notice he cite the case in salk  mason versus William note it be hold by Lord chancellor Cowper that a executor  may pay debt of a high nature after a decree quod to sum up but not after a  final one for such a decree be in the nature of a judgement mason versus  William Lord chancellor I think this question have be determine and settle but  ingenious man I find can to distinction where the thing itself will not admit  of it the difference between a decree quod to sum up and a final decree be  take and atkins er p settle in the case of morris versus the bank of England  Cas in the time of Lord Ch Talbot decree of this court be here put upon the  same foot with judgement at law though they have not obtain the same privilege  there Bligh v Darnley p W Searle v lane vern mason v William salk bishop v  Godfrey Prec Charles Martin v Martin Ves it be allow that if a decree be  obtain against a testator or his executor quod to sum up it can by no mean be  put upon a equality with a judgement confess after such decree a decree quod  to sum up always conclude in the same manner and yet do not vary at all as to  the executor for before a final decree the executor may confess a judgement  and do not at all alter the nature of the demand notwithstanding the word be  insert in the decree that each party do pay for these word be only a direction  to the master to insert what shall appear to be due upon the balance to either  party and when the order be make absolute the money be to be pay to the person  report to be entitle these decree have be true compare to interlocutory  judgement at law suppose a man die indebt by bind and be likewise indebt upon  covenant and a action be bring upon the covenant and a interlocutory judgement  be quod recupere c and before the writ of inquiry of damage be execute and  final judgement enter up the testator die and the executor confess a judgement  to the bondcreditor he may plead it in bar to a to know facias upon the action  of covenant atkins so here in equity upon a decree quod to sum up it do not  pass in remember judicatam till the final decree but here it be say that there  be a liquidate sum and nothing appear on the part of Mr Haskins style by way  of discharge on the master report but it will be very dangerous to admit of  such nice distinction for the point with regard to asset be numerous enough  already and I will not suffer they to be make upon the particular word of this  decree but even the fact here do not warrant the distinction it be say in the  house of lord in the case of morris versus the bank of England that in a  decree quod to sum up it be impossible to pronounce who will be the debtor or  creditor and no stress be to be lie upon the word that each party do pay in  the decree the exception be overrule and the judgement creditor be decree to  be satisfy out of the asset of Mr Haskins style preferable to the plaintiff  sir John smith so mason v William salk Darston v earl of Oxford Prec Charles  goodfellow v Burchett vern contra Joseph v mott Prec Charles but it now seem  settle that where a decree be obtain at the suit of creditor for a account of  the testator personal estate it will bind other creditor and if they sue at  law the court will award a injunction Martin v Martin Ves Douglas v Clayton  cite bro Charles Rep goat v friar bro Charles Rep Hardcastle v Chettle bro  Charles Rep vide etian Lowthian v Hassell bro Charles Rep Reg lib b fol