Bradish agt gee chanc may under a decree direct land to be turn into money the  party entitle to the produce of land so convert can elect whether it shall  descend to big heir or executor or to keep the land ambler S c under a former  decree by consent in a ancestor of the plaintiff wife be entitle to the money  which shall be the produce of certain land direct to be sell for that purpose  and the question on the present bill be between the plaintiff as big heir and  big personal representative the plaintiff insist to have the land as descend  to he and his claim be find on certain act of the ancestor by which it be  contend he have express a intention to keep the land to himself and consider  they as such and on his behalf it be insist by Mr attorneygeneral and Mr York  that whoever be entitle to the fee of land to be purchase with money agree to  be lie out in that manner or to the money which be to be the produce of land  agree to be sell for that purpose have a right to determine the question  between Kenyon big heir and big executor and to direct it to descend to which  of they be please his direction though by parole amount to a rebutter of that  equity which require a specific performance of the agreement Pidwards v earl  of Wcrwik p William Mr Henley for the defendant it be fair admit that every  agreement between party or direction by a court have proper authority be to be  consider in this court just as it will if actual Kenyon er p execute in a  court of law and that the judgement of any court have proper authority direct  money to be turn into land or vice line be as significant as a agreement of  the party own but upon this a very nice distinction be attempt to be ingraft  and that be that the owner of this land or money have a control over that  equity by direct to who it shall descend whether as land or money and that  this may be do by parole nay further by any act c intimate a intention of  alter the manner of its descent the case that have be cite do not go quite so  far though my Lord Macclesfield do intimate in that case that a parole  declaration will have control that trust I must however submit that the most  express parole declaration will not be permit to alter that quality which the  equity of this court think proper to impress upon it there be beside this  another question of very great importance and that be whether a person claim  under one of the party to a original decree by consent shall be at liberty to  pray another decree diametrical contrary to the former while that stand  unimpeached now a decree by consent can be appeal from or reheard that I  apprehend be settle in sir George downing Kenyon case short report in Eq Qa  Abr and it seem very extraordinary that though the court will not rectify a  error by rehear or appeal yet you may bring a original bill and the court will  make another decree direct repugnant and two contradictory decree shall stand  on the record of this court operate together on the same subject yet this the  plaintiff be seek by the present bill videlicet to have your lordship in a new  decree consider the estate as land descendible as such to his wife though in  the former decree of it be direct to be convert into money Lord chancellor I  agree with the plaintiff counsel that where a man be entitle to the property  of land c to be purchase with money or money to arise from a sale of land and  have his election to take it either way very slight act of his will determine  whether that property shall go to his heir or executory I will not go so far  as to say as my Lord Macclesfield do that a parole declaration shall determine  it it be unnecessary here and therefore I will not confirm that opinion but  thus much I will say as my opinion that any express act will be evidence of  the party election but this must be understand to be mean ofily in case where  theparty have his election to take it either way for when the party himself  have no such election nobody that stand in his stead can have it and on the  circumstance of this case I do dot think the party himself can have elect to  have have this land nor will the court have so direct have he apply for that  purpose that therefore distinguish this case from that which be cite Mr  attorneygeneral to the other question I know your lordship do determine on a  petition Kenyon agreeable to the case Mr Henley mention that the party shall  be bind by their counsel consent and be leave to their action at law against  the counsel if they consent without authority but where the party themselves  by fraud procure such a decree as by consent there can be no doubt but the  party by original bill may obtain relief and it be on that foundation we seek  it Lord chancellor here have be two question saint whether the plaintiff be  entitle to relief his ancestor counsel have never consent or consent without  authority dly what I have already mention as to the first it be determine as  Mr Henley mention in sir George downing case which I have often hear sir  Joseph Jekyll mention here sir George swear himself and offer to prove that he  never give any authority to consent but the house of lord will not permit it  as it will be of dangerous consequence but leave he to his action against his  counsel and this have be the practice ever since and it will be of mischievous  consequence to alter it it be now however attempt to be carry too far where  such a decree be obtain by fraud you can be relieve by appeal or rehear for  that will be bring into the cause what be not original part of it but then by  original bill you may have relief against such fraud the judgement of a court  of law may be overturn here if obtain by fraud for fraud if prove affect every  thing upon this principle be determine the case of Richmond v Taileure before  Lord Macclesfield and Lloyd v Mansell mention in Edward v the earl Q Warwick c  a original bill to be relieve against Kenyon a former decree as obtain by  fraud plea of that decree without deny the Kenyon er p fraud and for that  reason Lord Macclesfield overrule the plea so you may plead a conveyance  charge to be obtain by fraud provide that fraud be deny but here be no manner  of evidence of fraud so that as to the other point this be a decree obtain by  consent of all party and all party be include who be interest and consider for  a valuable consideration the consequence wasi that neither the ancestor nor  any other of the party can come here and elect to have the land and as he have  no election every person claim under he must take it subject to the same  consequence as he under who they claim