case sheffield v the duchess of Buckinghamshire October the that a bill for a  perpetual injunction to stay proceed in the prerogative court for controvert  the will and codicil of John duke of Buckinghamshire after the determination  already have the injunction before grant make perpetual the bill be bring by  Mr Sheffield against the defendant the duchess of Buckinghamshire for a  perpetual injunction t oh all further proceed in the suit in the prerogative  court for controvert or call in question the will and codicil of John late  duke of Buckinghamshire after the determination already have and opinion give  by the court atkins Lord chancellor after hear the case elaborate argue I be  of the same opinion as when I grant the injunction and the case not be alter  the same reason continue for make it perpetual three question arise in this  case first if this question have be already determine or which be the same  thing whether the duchess of Buckinghamshire be conclude as to this point  second if this question have be determine on proceed in a proper court three  what will be the consequence of grant or not grant it the first depend on  several fact and proceed in this court and admission in her grace answer two  bill have be bring by the late duke of Buckinghamshire Edmund and Mr Sheffield  both of they suggest the will and codicil to be duly execute and both to be  duly prove the duchess be defendant to both the bill and say in her answer she  believe they both of the duke be own hand write and insist on and claim legacy  under they the will and codicil have be both prove in this court by witness  examine on the part of the duchess the cause hear and the court have declare  the will and codicil to be well prove and decree the trust of they to be  perform and those trust relate as well to personal as real estate the personal  estate have be lie out under the decree of this court and two great purchase  also make under the direction of the court and with the acquiescence of a  proper party and a conveyance execute to trustee and likewise a order  pronounce for approve of the purchase and a quiet enjoyment by the duchess of  what be give her by the will to this very time after duke Edmund death there  be a appeal to the house of lord by the duchess not only in her own right but  express name as executrix of her son insist that the court have mistake the  construction but not in the least complain of the invalidity or undue  execution of the will or codicil the decree of the court below be affirm by  the lord in atkins er p I be of opinion therefore that by this series of fact  and proceed the duchess be conclude unless new material evidence appear it be  object that this court have presume the will and codicil to be well prove on  the probate only which have never yet be contest in the proper court but it be  not so for here the probate have be strengthen by the admission of the party  concern and as to the matter of fact a admission by a party concern see post  vol and who be most likely to know be strong than if it have be determine by a  jury and fact be as proper conclude by admission as by a trial as in writ of  error the party may admit error in fact though he can admit error in law and  if this court be not to conclude on such admission there will be no end of  cause here where there be no jury at the bar atkins it be object the admission  carry it no further than the probate will go of itself if the probate mere be  produce and nothing say about it this court must presume it good and proceed  on it but if party be dissatisfy with the probate this court will give time to  dispute the validity of it and suspend their determination till it have have a  trial in a proper court as in the case of pain v Stratton the court voluntary  give time to try the validity upon some apprehension of a difference between  the probate and original will but here the case be very different the party in  this case so far from be dissatisfy that at the time of admit the probate the  original be produce and these rasure appear on the face of it and then when if  at any time this objection to the bill shall have be make they allow the will  well prove second question if it have be determine in a proper court it be  insist that the validity of the probate be only proper to be determine in the  ecclesiastical court and that nothing do in a temporal court can conclude it  be true in a adversary way this court or a court of law can determine the  validity of a probate of a will or codicil see Bennet v vade post vol but if  it come here on a incident in a cause and that incident be admit by the party  this court or a court of law may determine it and hold the party bind by their  admission and if either of the party will afterward bring a new suit to  contest that determination this court will certain grant a perpetual  injunction as to the distinction which have be offer between party admit thing  proper to be determine by the court in which the admission be make and  admission of thing cognisable in another court I can see no difference if fact  be admit and the party establish their own admission dispute about probate may  be determine by a decree in a proper court yet under the direction of this  court like the case where this court do not direct a issue but give liberty to  bring a new ejectment but what proper and effectual give this court a  jurisdiction here in the present case be the trust declare in the will the  trust this court have determine on and every thing that come in by incident  bind the party this question do not touch or impeach the jurisdiction of the  ecclesiastical court as in the case of a prohibition where if the court  proceed the judge be guilty of a contempt but the injunction stay the party  from proceed and at the same time this court suppose the ecclesiastical court  to have jurisdiction but do not think proper from some collateral cir atkins  cumstances to suffer the party to apply and take the benefit of that  jurisdiction three as to the consequence of grant the injunction or not it be  object that this case be not a proper one for a perpetual injunction that here  be no vexation or multiplicity of trial but that be not the only ground the  court proceed on in grant injunction though in mere legal title it be so it be  not the ground in the case of Acherly v Vernon or of Calvert v Colby where in  each there be only one trial new matter be the only solid ground of contest  this will and if there have appear any new material fact and evidence since  the last hear I shall not have grant the perpetual injunction but the rasure c  object to now do appear on the face of the will nor be there any proof that  the duchess have no knowledge of they till after the hear nor be it dispute  but that the rasure and interlineation be of the duke be own hand write as to  a new right accrue to her grace as executrix of her son that make no  alteration with regard to the consequence of the present question he be boundb  atkins er p the decree unless there be new matter or fraud and collusion a  infant be bind by a decree make for his benefit see Gregory v Molesworth post  vol which this decree plain be and as to personal estate unless for the cause  before mention the parole never demurrer and her grace can be in a better  condition than her son for if a decree be for the benefit of a infant and he  die his executor shall never dispute that decree though it may be for the  advantage of the executor so to do but here have be act do by her grace in  this capacity since the death of her son which bind her a appeal to the house  of lord as executrix of her son and insist on and claim under the will and  codicil as to the authority atherley v Vernon be full for the plaintiff unless  new matter have be show and Calvert v Colby be a case not so strong as the  present the case of Montague v Maxwell in the house of lord cite for the  defendant do not come up to the present there be nothing in that case but the  probate simple no admission no proof in this court nor any act or judicial  proceed here in the case of Crompton v Crompton there be only extrajudicial  declaration if I be not to grant this injunction many inconvenience must  necessary arise to the party the will make be in and prove with the privity of  the duchess in the decree be in the same year vast sum lie out and a  acquiescence of all party the decree affirm in the house of lord in then a new  suit in the ecclesiastical court to dispute the will on the same fact on which  the precedent determination be have two witness be dead who possible if live  may establish the will if this be suffer property will never be safe atkins as  to the trustee action at law if the will be overturn may be bring against they  for act under the decree of this court nor will it be in the power of this  court to help they his lordship therefore decree that a perpetual injunction  be award to stay the defendant the duchess of Buckinghamshire from proceed in  the prerogative court of Canterbury or in any other ecclesiastical court in  the suit already bring by her grace or in any other suit to call in question  or revoke the say probate of the will and codicil of John late duke of  Buckinghamshire her late husband or to have the same declare null and void or  that it may be pronounce that the say duke die intestate and as to the cost of  this suit his lordship give none