case HATHORNTHWAITE versus russel first seal after Hilary term February SC  barn Charles Rep it be no ingredient to take the asset out of the hand of a  executor that he be not of a affluent fortune as long as the testator himself  have place this confidence in he without regard his circumstance a motion for  a receiver to be appoint by this court to collect in the money stand out upon  several security and the rest of the asset of a testator on a suggestion that  the will be obtain by fraud and that the sanity of the testator be now  likewise contest in the ecclesiastical court see Montgomery v clark post  affidavit too on the part of the motion be produce to show the mean  circumstance of the two executor and the counsel rely much upon the case of  powis versus Andrews where upon a like motion a receiver be appoint bro par  can and Edward SC see also tailor v Allen post Barnsley v Powell Ves Morgan v  Harris bro Charles Rep brown v dudbridge ibidem Lord chancellor deny the  motion and distinguish it from the case of powis and Andrews there the fraud  appear very strong the executor too be not relate to the testator take out a  probate the very morning he die and that very afternoon waste and imbeziled  large sum of money which they get into their hand but here it be wide  different there be very strong affidavit produce on the part of the defendant  to prove the sanity of the testator and no circumstance to show that the  executor use any unjust mean or prevail upon the weakness of the testator to  make his will in their favour beside upon the very face of it it be a rational  will for he give away his estate in legacy to seven of his near relation and  have prefer the executor who be as near of kin to he as the plaintiff himself  by make they residuary legatee atkins nor be there any ground to grant this  motion upon the other suggestion of the executor not be responsible from their  indigent circumstance the court never esteem this as any ingredient to take  the asset out of the hand and care of the executor nor will even the  ecclesiastical court refuse person a probate because they be not of affluent  fortune as long as the testator himself have place this confidence in they  without regard their circumstance beside too this case be material different  from powis and Andrews in another respect there be no probate here so that as  the bulk of the testator estate be place out upon security the executor be not  entitle to sue or bring any action for they this application too be not till a  year after the commencement of the suit in the ecclesiastical court for these  reason his lordship deny the motion