case bligh all versus earl of Darnley at the roll marshal of asset one by will  give several legacy some charge on the real estate and other not if the  personal estate prove not sufficient to pay all the legacy charge on the real  estate shall be pay thereout or if they have be pay out of the personal estate  the other legacy as to so much shall stand in their place upon the land the  late earl of Darnley the defendant father seize in fee of a great real estate  both in England and Ireland and possess of a leasehold in Scotland and  likewise of a considerable personal estate have two son and three daughter by  his will devise pound apiece to his two old and pound to his young daughter  charge his real estate with the payment thereof afterward by a codicil be  bequeathe several peer William pecuniary legacy of considerable value to his  several brother and sister the plaintiff without charge his real estate with  the payment of these latter legacy subsequent to which he enter into a  contract before the master for the payment of pound for a three part of the  manor of cobhamhall in ken he leave two three of the say manor before the  master report he the best purchaser and before his death which happen soon  after the report be absolute confirm the Lord Darnley S personal estate before  his enter into the contract for the purchase of this estate be sufficient for  the payment of all his legacy but the performance of the contract will as it  be think occasion a deficiency of asset Mr Hornby who be the owner of the  three part of the manor of Cobham have bring his bill against the executor and  heir of the late earl of Darnley to have the purchase complete and the money  pay obtain a decree for the same at which time the now plaintiff S the young  brother and sister of the late earl bring their bill set forth the will and  that several pecuniary legacy have be give they out of the personal estate in  general that his daughter bad the above mention legacy charge upon the real  estate and that the testator since the make his will have enter into this  contract for the purchase of the Cobham estate whereby there may be a  deficiency of the personal asset for the payment of those legacy therefore  they pray that the asset may be marshal and the daughter legacy pay out of the  real estate or if already recover out of the personal then that the plaintiff  the brother and sister may stand in the place of the daughter and take so much  out of the land for their legacy as these bad exhaust out of the personal peer  William estate which the court decree as reasonable and within the common rule  of marshal asset hide v Clyde Charles Rep master v master ante vol Clifton v  burt ante vol but then it be further press by Mr attorney general that the  debt contract for this purchase by the late earl of Darnley be due by a decree  a contract in make with the intervention of and confirm by the court which  have order the late earl to pay it and take it to be a debt due by a decree it  be then in nature of a judgement which will bind the real asset in the hand of  the heir and if so then since the land agree to be purchase be real asset  consequent even that and more plain the other real estate devise or descend to  the defendant the infant earl be asset liable to the decree and the purchase  money contract to be pay for Cobham manor ought to come out of the real estate  by which mean there will be personal estate sufficient leave for payment of  the pecuniary legacy give to the plaintiff but the master of the roll be very  clear in his opinion against the plaintiff as to this last point hold it not  to be a debt due by a decree but only by a order of court against the late  earl for the payment of the purchase money who not be party to the original  cause but come in before the master it can not be say there be a decree  against he but suppose there be a decree yet where it be say a decree be equal  to a judgement or to be pay next thereto Harding v edge vern this must be  intend only out of the personal estate whereas a decree for a debt do not bind  the real estate act only in mask not in remember and the remedy upon a decree  to affect the land be only for a contempt whereupon the party proceed to a  sequestration which process be not of a very long peer William stand and peer  William er p that a sequestration be but a personal process appear by its fall  and abate by the death of the party on the other hand a extent upon a  judgement do not so abate that judgement do not affect the land until the  statute of Westminster Edward c which can hardly be think to have include a  decree nay plain it do not for if so it will have affect but a moiety of the  land as a judgement do whereas upon a sequestration the plaintiff take the  whole profit that if a decree for a debt shall be obtain and the defendant die  leave no personal but a considerable real estate in fee the latter will not be  affect by the decree in the hand of the heir as it will in case of a judgement  and be this otherwise sure after so many thousand decree and instance of  deficiency of personal asset for the satisfy thereof some case will be find  where land have be sequester for such debt in the heir hand but no precedent  of this kind be ever beard of and though the land thus contract to be purchase  must in equity be take as land descendible and devisable as such still it be  not liable to the decree however the plaintiff hope that the personal asset  will be sufficient to answer not only all the legacy but also this contract  for the purchase when the daughter legacy be place upon the land the court  decree a account to be take of the personal estate doubt at the same time  whether the leasehold in Scotland can be look upon as personal estate in  England though a leasehold estate in Ireland be personal asset in England and  may be sell here but the master be leave at liberty to report any thing  special Reg lib a fol mason v William salk Searle v lane vern Joseph v mott  pre Charles Martin v Martin ves very v Phelips Ves so a decree for the  administration of asset which be in the nature of a judgement for all creditor  Paxton v Douglas Ves largan v bow Sch l and see Douglas v clay dick Kenyon v  Worthington dick Gilpin v lady Southampton Ves Farrell v smith ba be Terrewest  v Featherby mere sims v ridge mere Jackson v leaf James W Fleming v prior mad  vide morris v bank of England can tempt Tal Astley v powis ves Mildred v  Robinson Ves so morris v bank of England where sup Wharam v Broughton ves but  in Hawkins v crook atk it be say that although a sequestration on mesne  process be determine by the death of the party yet it be otherwise where it  issue for nonperformance of a decree see Rowley v Ridley dick hide v Greenhill  dick hide v Forster dick Coulston v gardener swan n Lord carmarthen v Lawson  ib n if a executor have asset of his testator in any part of the world he  shall be charge with they Dowdales case Rep and where the subject be land  situate in a foreign country the court will ascertain by inquiry whether the  testator interest in it be in its nature real or personal gardener v fall  James W