atkins case rial v rial February the that S c Amb a give several legacy and  make b his executor and residuary legatee b receive all the asset and buy land  with the money and die and also buy the equity of redemption of another estate  on which a have a mortgage bill bring by legatee to be pay their legacy out of  a s real and personal estate the court direct a inquiry whether part of the  asset be lie out in the purchase of a estate and if they be declare they ought  to be restore to testator personal estate the equity of redemption hold to be  asset the testator give several legacy and make b his executor and residuary  legatee b receive all the asset and buy land with the money and die and  likewise buy the equity of redemption of another estate on which testator have  a mortgage the bill be bring by the several legatee against the administrator  and heir at law of to be pay their legacy out of real and personal estate  first question if the personal asset be not sufficient whether the legatee may  not come upon the purchase estate for satisfaction second question whether the  equity of redemption of the mortgage estate buy since the death of the  testator may not be consider still as the asset of the testator and liable to  answer the legacy for the plaintiff be cite the case of Bolney v Hamilton  before Lord king July the that for the defendant Kirk v web Prec in Ch m and  kind v Milward vern Lord chancellor court of equity have be very cautious how  they follow money which have be lie out in land because it have no earmark  though they have do it in some case vide Kirk v web Prec Charles heron v heron  ibidem Eq ab S c Halcot v Markant Prec Charles Eq ab pl S c finder v Milward  Prec Charles vern S c Eq ab pl S c Deg v Deg p W wait v whorwood post vol  Balgney v Hamilton Amb lane v Dighton Amb the principal difficulty in these  case be with regard to the proof for the different interest of the party  introduce a contrariety of evidence and be no small temptation to perjury but  in the present case I think it be necessary there shall be a inquiry whether  part of the asset of the testator have be lie out in the purchase of a estate  because if it shall plain appear that they have be so lie out they ought to be  restore to the personal estate of the testator suppose the executor have be  live and have by his answer own that lie have lie out part of the asset in  such purchase atkins it will have remove the objection of fraud and perjury by  let in parole proof but the person now before the court be only the  administrator of the executor and though he foe indeed admit that credit be  give to the account of the executor yet this be no evidence against the infant  heir at law but it be ground for a inquiry into this fact and the mean of come  at this by way of result trust be except out of the statute of fraud if the  estate be purchase in the name of one and the money pay by another it be a  trust notwithistand atkins er p ing there be no declaration in write by the  nominal purchaser Loyd v spillet post vol and upon enquiry a little matter  will do to make it a charge pro tanto as to the second point with regard to  the equity of redemption I think it be very cleat that it must be consider as  asset and liable to the legacy