This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1821 edition. Excerpt: ...and the Norfolk estate as an estate in reversion; and so to value what the term, upon each estate respectively, was worth to be sold, (s) In which case we (r) Aldrich v. Cooper, ft Ves. bam, or Heaningham v. Henning382. 384. ham, 2 Vern. 365. S. C. but not so (s) Herinjngham v. Heyening-well stated, I Eq. Ca. Ab. 117.gl.5. may observe that, it being upon a settlement, the land was the original debtor. So if mortgaged lands and unincumbered lands be devised to different persons, but expressly after payment of debts, the mortgaged lands and the unincumbered lands shall contribute in proportion to discharge the mortgage. () It is a rule in equity that where one creditor has two funds to resort to, and another creditor but one, the creditor having the two funds must resort to that which the other creditor cannot resort to, and which, paying him, will leave the other fund open for the other creditor, (m) Therefore, if a person having two real estates, mortgages both to one person, and afterwards only one estate to a second mortgagee, the Court, in order to relieve the second mortgagee, will direct the first to take his satisfaction out of that estate only which is not in mortgage to the second mortgagee, if that is sufficient to satisfy the first mortgage, in order to make room for the second mortgagee, even though the estates descended to two different persons. (x) And the circumstance of one estate being freehold and the other copyhold, will make no difference in this arrangement. (y) Upon the like principle, if a mortgagor sells part of the mortgaged estate, though, in respect of the mortgagee, he would have a right to have both parts of the estate liable for his satisfaction; yet, on a bill by him for foreclosure or sale, the equity would...