case Purefoy versus Purefoy Eq can ab pl S c where a deed of trust be make for  payment of debt it shall extend only to debt contract at the time of make the  deed I S make a deed of trust for the payment of his debt to take effect after  his death the word in the deed be money owe by he the word as state in Reg lib  be in trust after the death of he and his wife to pay or cause to be pay the  debt in a schedule to the say deed annex videlicet to c S pound to I S pound  and to pay several other debt of the say g p the settlor amount to pound toto  pound and a schedule be annex to the deed wherein mention be make of pound owe  to a and pound owe to b and then there be this item videlicet the sum of pound  owe to other person it be urge that the land shall stand charge by this Vernon  chancery case deed not only for such debt as be owe by he at the time of make  thereof but for any debt he afterward contract so as they do not exceed the  sum mention in the schedule but it be decree that those land shall stand  charge only with such debt as be owe at the time of make of the deed and the  Lord chancellor say it be so in all case where a deed be make for payment of  debt owe unless it be express to be for payment of such other debt as he shall  afterward contract or to that effect in this case the heir at law by his bill  pray a account against a trustee for two several estate that be convey unto he  upon trust for payment of several and distinct debt one of the estate not  mention in the deed of trust be mortgage by the plaintiff father to defendant  Purefoy several year after the deed of trust to secure pound and interest  advance by he for payment of part of the schedule debt of plaintiff say father  mention in the deed of trust r and now will have have his bill dismiss as to  one of the estate and have have the account take for the other only but it be  decree that a entire account shall be take of both estate the account to be  keep separate r l for that it be allow as a good cause of demurrer in this  court that a bill be bring for part of a matter only which be proper for one  entire account because the plaintiff shall not split cause and make a  multiplicity of suit and Mr Hutchins say where a bill be bring to redeem two  mortgage and there be more money lend upon one of they than the estate be  worth the plaintiff shall not elect to redeem one and leave the heavy mortgage  unredeemed but shall be compel to take both or none Reg lib fol so as to the  heir margrave v Le hook post vol pope v Onslow ibidem et vide cator v Charlton  saint June Reg lib collet v munden may Reg lib and the doctrine full recognize  in Jones v smith Ves jun and see Willie v lugg Eden Ireson v den Cox but where  tenant for life remainder in tail and mortgage by tenant for life and then  mortgage by remainder man on death of tenant for life redemption decree on  payment of the second mortgage money only Bromley v Hammond Ch can but where  husband and wife seize of land in right of the wife by fine and deed mortgage  for pound and then pay part and afterward take up other money on the same  mortgage but no new fine levy decree that heir shall pay both sum or be  foreclose rayson v Sacheverel post Ch can the rule appear former to have be as  general with regard to tack bind debt also to mortgage Baxter v man post  Shuttleworth v Laywick post Coleman v winch p wms and case in note there but  by the late case the mortgagee can tack a bind to his mortgage as against the  mortgagor or creditor but only as against the heir of mortgagor or devisee  within the statute of fraudulent devise and that to prevent circuity of action  anon ves Hammerton v Roger Ves jun vide also challis v Casborn pre Chan Eq can  ab pl powis v Corbett atk Jones v smith ub sup and not even as against the  heir where the descent be break Heames v species of fish atk nor as against  devisee where there be intervene encumbrance of a superior nature between the  mortgagee mortgage and his bind powis v Corbet ub sup nor can the mortgagee  tack his bind as against the alienee of the heir of the mortgagor be a  purchaser for a valuable consideration Bayley v Robson pre Chan Coleman v  winch ub sup Troughton v Troughton ves it appear in the case of executor that  when testator mortgagor die indebt by mortgage and on simple contract that  executor shall not redeem mortgage without payment of simple contract debt  also Eccles v Thawill pre Chan anon post vol so say also in Demandray v  Metcalf pre Chan Coleman v winch ub sup Vernon chancery case er p