case Hartwell and wife against chitters that Apr equity of redemption of a  leasehold estate be equitable asset lib Reg a foe this cause come on for  further direction on the master report the case be bill by plaintiff in right  of the wife as bind creditor of Thomas burgess decease against defendant  Banaster as mortgagee of a leasehold estate and also against the  administratrix de good non to have the estate sell and for satisfaction out of  the money after discharge of the mortgage and the usual decree be make for a  account to be take and the plaintiff to be pay in a course of administration  that February the master inter alian a bind debt due to defendant Banaster  subsequent in date to the plaintiff bind Q whether the equity of redemption of  the leasehold estate be equitable or legal asset Lord Hardwicke chancellor  hold it to be equitable asset on the authority of the creditor of sir Charles  Cox case win which he say be in point the general direction in the decree to  apply the asset in a course of administration do not confine such application  to a ambler legal course but it be to be take distributive and understand W  legal or equitable accord to the nature of the asset so ambler er p decree for  a account of debt extend to equitable as well as legal debt painter Housten  merr ware v cook at the roll before hill term Wilson v Fielding vern be cite  by the counsel for plaintiff where it be say that in case of personal asset as  a lease for year c although a creditor can get at it without the aid of a  court of equity yet the asset shall be apply in a due course of administration  by the decree on further direction the mortgage estate be direct to be sell  and what be due to Banaster for principal and interest to be pay in the first  place and after payment of what be due to he the purchase money be direct to  be apply in payment of the debt report due to the plaintiff and the other  creditor of the testator acquire step it appear from Mr Cox note to the case  of sir Charles Cox creditor that the point whether the equity of redemption of  a leasehold estate be to be consider as legal or equitable asset be not in  fact determine in that case the solicitor general Mitford in his argument in  sharp v the earl of Scarborough Ves be report to have hold that the case of  sir c Cox creditor and Hartwell and chitters have be consider as overrule and  that the equity of redemption of a leasehold estate be clear asset at law and  the executor there charge with the difference between the value of the estate  and the sum he pay in the redemption of it Mr Cox in the note above refer to  state upon the authority of Hawkins v law lev Harcourt v Wrenham more roll Rep  brown roll Abr Alexander v lad Graham lev that it have be decide that chattel  whether real or personal mortgage or pledge by the testator and redeem by the  executor be asset at law for so much as they be worth beyond the sum pay for  their redemption though recoverable in equity only Bailey I however in the  case of clay v Willis b c cite the case of sir c Cox creditor and Hartwell v  chitters as authority for the equity of redemption of a term be equitable  asset see soley v Gower vern Wilson v Fielding vern rial v rial atk S c post a  equity of redemption on a mortgage in fee be equitable asset Plunkett v  Pearson atk though it be former hold otherwise in analogy to trust estate in  fee under the statute of fraud which be thereby render liable to execution at  law Freem pl a reversion in fee in the mortgagor on a mortgage for year be  legal asset because the bind creditor may have a judgement against the heir  with a cepat execution till the reversion come into possession in Plunkett v  Pearson atk messam v Harding cite ib S c bunb