case yates versus compton follow palmer v Craufurd Swanst distinguish in re  Mabbett Ch Lord chancellor king Sel can in Ch Eq can ab pl pl pl pl one devise  that his executor shall sell his land and leaves two executor one whereof die  and the other renounce and administration be grant to a who bring a bill  against the heir to compel a sale whether the renounce executor in who this  power of sale collateral to the executorship be vest ought not to be make a  party a devise that his executor shall sell his land in dale and with the  money arise by that sale and the surplus of his personal estate shall purchase  a peer William annuity of pound for the life of jane style and shall allow to  her so much thereof as will maintain her and her child and give pound to each  child to be raise out of the say annuity and the personal estate he shall die  possess of and the overplus of his personal estate he give to jane style and  make b and c executor the testator die and jane style the intend annuitant die  within three month after he b and c the executor renounce administration with  the will annex be grant to the plaintiff who be also the administrator of jane  style the intend annuitant and with the child of jane bring this bill against  the heir of the testator to compel he to join in a sale of these land in dale  for the defendant it be object that there want party in regard the executor  ought to have be make defendant for notwithstanding they have renounce yet the  power of sale continue in they and be altogether collateral to their  executorship vide hark   Litt a note Sugden power she Bentham v Wiltshire mad  Patton v Randall James W Tilden v hide S S but there be only a power and no  estate devise to the executor this objection be overrule yet Q the plaintiff  counsel then proceed upon the merit it be contend on behalf of the heir that  as nothing but a bare power of sale be give to the executor so such power be  for a particular purpose to buy a annuity for jane style and forasmuch as that  purpose can not now be answer jane style be dead there ought not to be any  sale peer William that this be within the reason of the case where one devise  land for the raise portion for daughter and the daughter die before they be  marriageable the land ought not to be sell but go to the heir at law so where  land be devise for payment of debt and the testator himself life to pay his  debt in such case there shall be no sale and here it be the same as if the  intend annuitant have die in the life of the testator in which case there  shall have be no sale and by the same reason there ought to be no sale now  that neither jane style or her child will be any sufferer by this construction  since if there have be a sale of the land and out of the money arise thereby a  annuity have be purchase for jane style the same have determine by her death  and the child can be no sufferer because they be to have their maintenance  only out of the say annuity which will now have be at a end have it be buy  that out of a very large estate of the testator this farm in question which be  not above pound per annum be all that be leave for the heir and if any act of  chance or providence shall have throw any pittance upon the heir it will be  hard for the court to interpose to the prejudice of he who be the favourite of  all court both of law and equity but by Lord chancellor the intention of the  will be to give away all from the heir to turn this land in question into  personal estate and this must be take as it be peer William er p at the death  of the testator and ought not to be alter by any subsequent accident vide  cruse v barley post vol peer William then it be insist that the estate in  question descend to the heir at law for which reason ha ought to have the rend  till the sale but the court deny this it be by the will change into personal  estate and say that if the executor have sell the land within three month  after the testator death and before the death of jane style the intend  annuitant then probable the executor of jane style shall on bar death have  have the money or perhaps she may in her lifetime have come into equity and  have pray that at least part of the money shall have be keep for the child and  not invest in the annuity nor ought the delay of the executor in not sell the  land in question within the say three month to hurt jane style the intend  annuitant or her child so decree the land to be sell and the money arise by  the sale as personal estate to be pay to the plaintiff he pay the child legacy  and the heir to join in the sale Reg lib b fol but the heir at law be order  his cost though by the register book the decree appear to have be as here  state yet it be not mention in what right the court take the plaintiff to be  entitle Whitaker v Whitaker bro c c barn v Rowley Ves Bayley v bishop Ves  palmer v Craufurd swan