case STILEMAN and his wife executrix of h Soane against John and William  ashdown that June see mackay v Douglas l r Eq judgement creditor shall have  satisfaction against the heir of the obligor for only a moiety of the land the  same as at law but if the heir come to redeem a mortgage he must pay the whole  mortgagemoney and the judgement too lib Reg b foe S c Cox ms lib t hill ms vol  on rehear ib atk John ashdown decease late father of the defendant purchase a  estate in land which by lease and release of that and that September be convey  to himself and the defendant John ashdown and their heir he afterward purchase  another estate in land which by lease ambler and release of the that and that  April be convey to he and his son William and their heir he be also entitle to  the equity of redemption of another estate at Heaver in the county of ken  which be mortgage to the defendant John ashdown for pound in Hilary term Geo  saint a judgement be obtain against he by h Soane for pound he afterward die  and the defendant have enter upon the several estate convey to they respective  bill be bring by the plaintiff to be satisfy the judgement debt out of the  land in mortgage and the other estate which be purchase and convey as ambler  er p foresay the defendant insist upon the benefit of the conveyance of and as  survive jointpurchasers they be intend as a provision or advancement for they  respective but admit I that the purchasemoney for those estate be pay by the  father the cause come on to be hear on the that December lib Reg b foe it be  declare that the plaintiff be entitle to have the equity of redemption of the  estate at Heaver and one moiety of the land comprise in the purchasedeeds of  and subject in equity to the satisfaction of the principal interest and cost  due on the judgement recover by Henry Soane against the say John ashdown the  father and direct the mortgage to be redeem by the plaintiff in the usual way  and in case of such redemption order that the mortgage premise and also one  moiety of the premise comprise in the purchasedeeds of the that and that  September and one moiety of the premise comprise in the purchasedeeds of the  that and that April to be sell in the usual way and the purchasemoney arise by  sale of the mortgage premise to be apply in the first place towards payment of  so much as shall be pay by the plaintiff to the defendant John ashdown for  principal interest and cost on his mortgage and in the next place towards  satisfaction of what shall be find due to the plaintiff for principal and  interest on their judgement and for their cost in their judgement and for  their cost in this court and if that shall not be sufficient to satisfy the  whole of the plaintiff demand it be order that the money arise by sale of the  two moieties of the premise comprise in the respective deed before mention  shall be apply in satisfaction of what shall ambler be remain due to the  plaintiff for principal and interest on their judgement and cost rateably and  proportionable and in case the money arise by sale of all the premise shall  not be sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff say demand the court reserve the  consideration touch the rend and profit of the two moieties and all further  direction till after the master report the plaintiff petition to rehear the  cause be advice that the whole of the premise comprise in the purchase deed be  subject to their demand and ought to have be direct to be sell towards make  such satisfaction and that the consideration of the rend and profit of the  whole of the say purchase ought to have be reserve the cause come on to be  reheard on the that June for the plaintiff it be argue that though at law only  a moiety of the land be extendible against the debtor and yet in equity all  the land be liable after the death of the debtor and especial when the land be  in the name of trustee that where there be several creditor the usual  direction be to sell the land and pay their demand out of the whole purchase  money accord to their priority without distinguish judgement creditor that  otherwise bind creditor will have the advantage of judgement creditor the  whole estate be liable to their demand and only a moiety to the judgement  creditor and the case of Compton v Compton that December be cite lib Reg a foe  bill by Henry Compton the heir at law of Richard Compton v amey Compton the  administratrix of the father and against Hussey and his wife and their trustee  claim to be entitle to a judgement acknowledge by Richard Compton the father  the cause become abate by the death of the plaintiff and be revive in the name  of hobby Compton a infant as heir at law and be hear at the roll upon the that  June lib Reg a foe when it be refer to the master to see what be due upon the  judgement and the plaintiff be direct to pay what be due and cost the cause  afterward become abate by the death of the administratrix it be revive by  supplemental bill in the common way and the former decree direct to be carry  into execution and hobby Compton order to pay what shall be certify due on the  judgement ambler from this decree hobby Compton the infant appeal and the  cause come on the that December Lord keeper vary the decree by direct the  personal estate to be first apply and also in that part which charge hobby  Compton personal and order that he shall make good only so far as the rend and  profit of Richard compton real estate liable to make satisfaction of the say  judgement have come to his hand and direct that if the personal estate and the  rend and profit of the real estate shall fall short of pay what shall be  certify to be due that such deficiency shouldbe make good by sale of the whole  real asset and land of Richard Compton liable to the say judgement on the  other hand it be argue that as only a moiety will be liable at law no more  ought in equity be able sequitur law suppose there be a subsequent mortgagee  ambler er p a moiety only can be extend as against he why then shall the whole  against the heir at law and the case of Harvey v Woodhouse that October  Fitzgib be cite where only a moiety be hold liable in this court Lord  Hardwicke chancellor in case of a bonddebt a action will lie against the heir  at commonlaw it be the debt of the heir and the action be bring in the debet  and to hold off against he but against the executor in the to hold off only  kinaston v clarke atk Gatton v Hancock ib Stonehouse v Thorpe ib at commonlaw  the heir be not bind by a judgement against his ancestor sir W Herbert case    Rep no to know facias can be sue against he this be the difference between a  specialty bind the heir and judgement obtain upon it against the heir and a  judgement against the ancestor then come the statute of Westminster which  enable the creditor to extend a moiety of the land either in the hand of a  purchaser or of the heir upon what foundation be the land bind as be in the  hand of the terre tenant after the death of the ancestor there be no ground to  charge the heir otherwise than as terre tenant it be object that a creditor by  bind be then in a better condition than a creditor by judgement against the  ancestor now in the judgement the heir be not name and the bind be become  extinct by the judgement against the ancestor and a court of equity can set it  up again against the heir a person may have reason to prefer a judgement to a  bind he may take a moiety of the land in the lifetime of the ancestor and so  defeat mesne encumbrance he may take a moiety after the testator ambler death  now the question be whether equity will go far than the law I know of no  instance indeed equity will relieve the creditor against mesne impediment and  in case of a mortgage if the heir come to redeem he shall redeem the mortgage  and the judgement too because of the entirety it be only in that particular  case it be say the court will quicken the satisfaction by a sale which be take  all the profit by anticipation I think the determination by Lord king be very  right in Compton v Compton the point red on the Monday seem not to have be  consider follow Lord chancellor cite cro car and die as authority for his  opinion decree affirm defendant to have the pound deposit l r in serjeant hill  ms this passage stand thus it be the business of a court of equity to remove  impediment to legal right but not to carry they further than the law do the  reason why a judgement creditor can redeem a mortgage prior to the judgement  and hold the whole estate till satisfy both debt be because of the entirety of  the mortgage which can be redeem in part see shish v Hopkins post appendix b  and therefore the heir can tale the legal estate from he without discharge the  whole of what he have pay the court will decree a sale in the follow case  saint where the estate be deficient to pay the encumbrance Dashwood v Pelhay  Mod where the mortgage be of a dry reversion now v Vigures Ch Rep where the  mortgagor die and the reversion descend on a infant booth v rich vern see  Williamson v Gordon Ves where the mortgage be of a advowson Mackenzie v  Robinson atk and under Lord Roslyns order where the mortgagor become bankrupt  see bro Eden b l