case bissell ux versus Axtell all in court Lord chancellor moon maii Eq can ab  pl pl S c a account decree of a intestate personal estate notwithstanding a  account before take and a distribution decree in the spiritual court the widow  in the spiritual court set up a procurator for her child the infant and get  her account pass there and each child proportion ascertain and distribution  decree and on give new security get the old security discharge the court  without regard have to the proceed of the spiritual court decree a account of  the whole estate And notwithstanding the proceed in the spiritual court all  the defendant be to be examine on interrogatory Reg lib a fol so a bill may be  bring against a executor for discovery of the personal estate before the will  be prove in the spiritual court or during the litigation thereof Dulwich  college v Johnson post and at law upon plene to manage plead the account give  to the ordinary shall not be give in evidence nor any regard have to it turner  case Ron ab so the judgement of the ecclesiastical court be as much subject to  the equity of the court of chancery as the judgement at law such dict per Lord  keeper Vanbrough v cock Ch can quere whether equity will relieve against  sentence of delegate Lord keeper so incline ibidem so suit by infant legatee  in the spiritual court can be plead in bar to a suit in equity Howell v  Waldron Ch can so of a plea that the ordinary be the judge on a bill for  distribution of intestate effect Pamplin v green Ch can but it seem that as to  fraud in obtain a will after probate and while the probate be in force  chancery will not intermeddle archer v moss ante p and case cite there nor  where spiritual court first possess of a cause in which it have concurrent  jurisdiction with chancery Nicholas v Nicholas pre Ch et vide Horrell v  Waldron ante vol p and case there refer to on what ground equity will grant a  injunction and a court of law a prohibition as to a suit in the ecclesiastical  court for subtraction of tithe vide Rotherham v fanshaw atk as to the power of  the court of chancery to order a will out of the office of the spiritual court  vide Frederick v Aynscomb atk Morse v roach strange cite there William v  Floyer Amb lake v Cansfield bro Ch can by which case such a power seem to have  be assume see also Qualey v Qualey mad et vide further on the general head  Bassett v Bassett atk where per Hardwicke Lord chancellor this court will not  grant a injunction to stay proceed in the ecclesiastical court for a legacy as  it be the proper jurisdiction for legacy charge on personal estate and this  court have always follow the rule of the ecclesiastical court in respect to  personal legacy as the proper jurisdiction Reynish v Martin atk as to the  circumstance where equity have and have not a jurisdiction in respect of the  right and duty of marriage the lead case of the first class be seal v Crawley  post to draw close v to draw close pre Ch Sidney v Sidney p wms Fitzer v  Fitzer atk head v head atk Guth v Guth bro Ch Rep ball v Montgomery Ves jun  shaftoe v shaftoe Ves those of the second Whorewood v Whorewood Ch can Ch Rep  SC send vide remark on that case head v head ub sup Hincks v Nelthorpe Vol  ball v Montgomery ub sup king v Blatch Ves shaftoe v shaftoe ub sup case of  the ship Noysomhead Ves Vernon chancery case er p