case earl OF strafford appellant William BLAKEWAY respondent that February  Mews dig ringtail see in re Stephens Ch d I S be indebt by simple contract  which be bar by length of time make his will and thereby devise land in trust  for the payment of his debt query whether this devise revive the debt and  whether to a bill file by the creditor to have the benefit of this trust a  plea of the statute shall be allow order of chancery partly reverse it seem  however to be the inclination of court of equity that such debt shall be pay  for they be debt in equity and the duty remain which be not extinguish by the  statute though that take away the remedy see p wms and the note there wms  viner vol p can Eq ab can sir Henry Johnson be possess of several dock and  yard at Blackwall which among other estate be leave to he by his father sir  Henry Johnson he after his father death continue to employ several workman  therein who he from time to time pay and carry on a great deal in these dock  for near year sir Henry the son not have pay the appellant the great part of  the portion he have covenant to give he with his daughter the appellant wife  by his will date the that of march direct that all his debt legacy and funeral  charge shall be pay and in case his personal estate shall not be sufficient to  pay the same he devise several part of his real estate to trustee in trust for  the payment of so much thereof as his personal estate shall fall short to pay  and make William Guydott his sole executor and give all the residue of his  estate to the appellant two daughter the testator die on the that of September  and Guydott have renounce the executorship and the appellant daughter be  infant the appellant thereupon obtain letter of brown administration from the  prerogative court with the will annex during the minority and for the use and  benefit of his say daughter after such administration be grant the appellant  in look into sir Henry account and paper find he have be very remiss in  preserve his receipt and voucher and in keep his account and that great sum  have be pay by he for which no receipt can be find in Hilary term the  respondent and one Sarah Harding widow bring their bill in chancery against  the appellant as administrator of sir Henry Johnson state that sir Henry be  indebt to the respondent in pound S d for sailmaker work do in and between the  month of February and the month of July and that pound be pay on account  thereof in and that sir Henry be indebt to the say Sarah Harding as  administratrix of her late husband in pound S d for joiner work do in and  therefore the bill pray a discovery of asset and payment of the say debt the  appellant have reason to believe nothing be due either to the respondent or  the say Harding and that they be encourage in the suit by some other person  nevertheless the appellant as to Hardings debt it be so small admit asset if  she make it appear to be a just debt but as to the respondent debt the  appellant have just reason to suspect the reality of it plead the statute of  brown er p limitation which plea be argue before the Lord chancellor king on  the that of October be order by his lordship to be overrule the appellant  therefore appeal from this order and on his behalf it be argue t Lutwyche W  peer William that it appear by the respondent own show in his bill that the  pretend work be begin so long ago as which be about year before sir Henry  death and that the last of the work pretend to be do be in about twelve year  before sir Henry death and it be not pretend that he ever sue sir Henry or  even demand this debt of he though he live till September nor be there the  least reason assign for the not do it and therefore if the debt be ever due it  be high probable that sir Henry himself pay it in his lifetime it must be  admit that sir Henry may have plead the statute of limitation after the  expiration of six year from the year and the respondent bill against the  appellant not be file till the d of January the reason be apprehend to be  strong why it shall be a good and proper plea for the appellant who be only a  administrator and consequent a utter stranger to the whole transaction and to  all sir Henry deal and this statute be purposely make for quiet of man estate  and avoid of suit for such stale demand it be humble insist that the plea  ought to have be allow that sir Henry will be make about a year and a half  before he die at which brown time and long before the statute have bar any  claim of this pretend debt that the will have only enlarge the fund for the  payment of debt but have not alter the nature or condition of those debt nor  be intend to revive any such as be previous bar for it can not be presume that  sir Henry intend to deprive his executor of any legal plea which he himself  may have plead or to provide for the payment of any but recoverable debt for  otherwise he will have let in all person he have ever deal with to come with  their demand upon his executor and put he who be a perfect stranger to prove  the payment of they but if the will shall be construe to extend to pretend  debt bar by the statute of limitation such construction be general and without  any limitation of time will open a gap for all the tradesman who sir Henry  have ever deal with though employ and pay off forty year ago to demand payment  over again and it be impossible at such a distance of time for the appellant  to prove payment and if this will be to be so construe then word of the like  import in all other will must receive the like construction which in effect  will total deprive all executor and administrator with will annex of the  benefit of plead the statute though such person as be stranger to their  testator affair stand most in need of it and will introduce endless fraud and  confusion as to the charge in the bill that pound be pay by sir Henry in on  account of the respondent demand it be only a bare allegation and if the some  will amount to a waiver by sir Henry of the benefit of the statute of  limitation the respondent though the plea be allow will have the benefit of  that circumstance by reply to the plea but the appellant must in common  presumption be consider as a utter strong thereto as he be to all the deal  between sir Henry and his tradesman and therefore it be pray that the order  may be reverse and the plea allow on the other side it be insist p York c  Talbot that the order be just and agreeable to the rule of equity because sir  Henry in his lifetime videlicet on the that of December pay the respondent  pound in part of his debt whereby the same if it have be bar by length of time  before will have be set up again and such payment in part do in point of law  amount to a new promise by sir Henry to pay the whole that be due but since  the payment of this pound sir Henry have by his will create a trust for the  payment of his debt out of his real as well as his personol estate and this  accord to the rule constant observe in court of equity extend to satisfy all  just debt notwithstanding that in point of time the statute of limitation may  have run upon they it be therefore hope that the order will be affirm with  cost but after hear counsel on this appeal it be order and adjudge that the  order complain of shall be reverse brown and that the plea shall stand for a  answer with liberty to except but not to oblige the appellant to make any  discovery of the value or particular of the real or personal estate appoint by  brown er p the will of sir Henry Johnson for the payment of his debt and that  the benefit of the plea shall be save to the appellant till the hear of the  causeMr brown say that after the most diligent search at the registeroffice he  have not be able to find any further proceed in the cause and therefore  conclude that the respondent submit to the present determination jour vol p