case MONTGOMERY versus clark and other November Lord Hardwicke think it a  absurdity that a will set aside at law for the insanity of the testator may  still be litigate on account of personal estate in the ecclesiastical court  and express a wish the legislature will find a remedy for it a motion be make  on behalf of the plaintiff as heir at law and next of kin to Elias turner who  will have be set aside for insanity that Mr clark one of the trustee and  executor of the will assay pay into the bank what money he have already  receive from the testator personal asset and that he may be restrain from get  in any more for the future Mr clark counsel insist that notwithstanding there  be a verdict at law against the will it affect the testator real estate only  and that he as executor be still at liberty to support the will in the  ecclesiastical court and therefore entitle to gather in the asset of his  testator to defend the validity of the will atkins Lord chancellor I have  often think it a very great absurdity that a will which consist both of real  and personal estate notwithstanding it have be set aside at law for the  insanity of the testator shall still be litigate upon paper deposition only in  the ecclesiastical court because they have a jurisdiction on account of the  personal estate dispose of by it I wish gentleman of ability will take this  inconvenience and absurdity into their consideration and find out a proper  remedy by the assistance of the legislature but as the law stand at present it  be not in the power of this court to interpose so as to stop the proceed in  the ecclesiastical court the testator have leave a very large personal estate  but have not trust Mr clark alone for he have appoint three more trustee who  have a joint power so that no one of they can act separate and therefore to  answer the end of the motion this method must be take I will direct Mr clark  who have receive pound of the testator money to pay it into the bank not to  the account of the trustee but in the name of the accountant general and that  there shall be a receiver appoint of the whole estate who shall pay in what he  receive from time to time into the bank with the accountant general privity  while the validity of the will be contest in the ecclesiastical court see  Hathornthwaite v Russell ante Phipps v steward ante vol