case BLATCH and agnis in behalf of themselves and all other creditor of  Francis Elliot decease plaintiff wile and other defendant may the d a testator  devise all his real and personal estate to be sell for payment of his debt and  appoint the defendant executor the personal estate not be sufficient a bill  bring by bind and note creditor of the testator to be pay their demand out of  the real estate the question whether the executor can sell the same as the  testator have give it general to be sell without direct who shall sell Francis  Elliot be indebt to the plaintiff by bind and note and to several other person  and be seize in fee in diverse land part freehold and part copyhold and ofa  considerable personal estate have duly surrender the copyhold make his will  and thereby devise all his real and personal estate whether freehold or  copyhold to be sell for payment of his debt and appoint the defendant wile and  agnis executor wile alone prove the will and take upon he the execution  thereof and the personal estate not be sufficient to pay his debt the  plaintiff bring their bill to be pay their respective demand out of the  testator real estate the defendant admit the will but wile the executor submit  it to the court whether he can safe proceed to a sale of the estate in regard  the testator have only give it to be sell general without direct who shall  sell the same Mr fazakerly insist the executor ought to sell and for this  purpose cite Jo Leon Lord chancellor I be of opinion that money arise from the  sale of land devise to a executor for that purpose or which the executor be  empower to sell be legal asset in his hand and administrable as such in Newton  v Bennet bro Charles Rep Lord Thurlow say that there must be a mistake in the  above case for it be always hold that a estate devise to a executor to sell be  equitable asset most however of the old case agree with the above statement of  Lord hardwicke decision Burwell v corrant hard Girling v lee vern Hawker v  Buckland vern greaves v Powell vern anon vern Cutterhack v smith Prec Charles  Bickham v freeman pre Charles Deg v Deg p W walker v meager p W but it seem  now to be settle that where a power be give to executor to sell land whether  that power be naked or couple with a interest whether it be reserve to they  and their heir or mere to they quasi executor the land subject to such power  will be consider as affect by a trust the executor as trustee and the money  arise by the sale as equitable asset Hickson v Witham finch anon vern challis  v Cashborn Prec Charles levuin v okeley post vol Newton v Bennet bro Charles  Rep silk v prime bro Charles Rep in note Barker v Boucher bro Charles Rep in  note Batson v Lindegreen bro Charles Rep notwithstanding it be hold in the  case of Fremoult v Dedire p W plunket v Penson post vol and Allan v Heber  stram that where land charge with the payment of debt descend to the heir at  law they be legal asset because the descent be not break as it will be in a  devise to a stranger yet that doctrine be express explode in Hargrave v Tindal  bro Charles Rep in note and in Batson v Lindegreen bro Charles Rep Lord  Thurlow say that a devise to a heir to sell will make the produce equitable  asset and a charge be a devise pro tanto see gilpin case cro car in what case  a equity of redemption shall be legal or equitable asset see plunket v Penson  post vol and such money c be asset likewise in the same manner in the present  case it be a very reasonable construction that the executor shall be the  person who shall make the sale and therefore decree that in case the personal  estate shall not be sufficient to pa the debt and legacy that then the real  estate of the testator both freehold and copyhold shall be sell and likewise  that the executor and the heir shall join in the sale and all other proper  party as the master shall direct Reg lib a fol so atkins it be agree in this  case that where land be devise to trustee to be sell for payment of debt and  the heir at law be a infant he have no day give he to show cause on his come  of age otherwise where there be no devise of land express to any particular  person for in that case he have and this be one of these case his lordship  direct the infant the customary heir of the copyhold premise to join in the  sale thereof p on attain unless within six month after he shall attain such  age he show good cause to the contrary and the purchaser of the copyhold in  the meantime to hold and enjoy the same atkins er p