case Porey et all versus marsh all in court die moon novembris one die leave a  debt by judgement and another by bind the judgement creditor levy his debt out  of the personal estate whether the bind creditor shall in equity stand in the  place of the judgement creditor and charge the land with his debt the  plaintiff be bondcreditors bring their bill against the heir and executor and  against sir John Thompson who have a judgement which bind the land but he be  at a good understanding with the heir refuse to go upon the land but levy his  debt upon the personal estate so that there be nothing leave to satisfy the  plaintiff they pray that sir John Thompsoni may either refund or they may have  the benefit of his security to follow the land it be insist for the defendant  the heir that here be no trust nor equitable asset they be to be administer in  a course of law and that there be no precedent where this court have interpose  where there be only legal asset but leave the creditor to take their  satisfaction in a course of law unless where the court have interpose that  bondcreditors subsequent to a decree shall not sweep away the asset as to the  case of knight and gay SC cite in fox v crane post under the name of knight v  Keyme that be cite on the other side it be not like to this where a man have  Vernon chancery case er p a mortgage and statute as a further security and he  by virtue of the statute Vernon chancery case sweep away the personal estate  and the plaintiff a legatee in that case have a decree to go upon the land for  there the land be the principal security so Fletcher v stone post but in the  matter in question the judgement affect the personal estate as well as the  real and as to Siblys case in the Lord jefferies time this point be stir but  no decree make in it Lord commissioner Hutchins incline to relieve the  plaintiff and say the heir in many case have the assistance and favour of the  court as to make the personal estate first liable to debt and to be apply in  ease and exoneration of the real estate and even a hres factus have have that  relief here and he therefore think it reasonable e turning that as the heir be  to have equity he ought to do equity on the head of marshal asset vide  Sagitary v hide ante Vol and case cite in note there springal v Delawne ante p