atkins case potter versus potter July the last seal after Trinity term see  Maddison v Alderson App Cas SC Ves Amb when the heir at law by his answer to a  bill bring to establish a will admit it to be duly execute and to the purport  as set forth say at the close of it he be the heir at law of the testator be  not sufficient to entitle he to the inspection of the title deed and write  belong to the estate a bill be bring by a devisee of all the estate real and  personal of the late archbishop potter to establish the will and codicil and  to carry the trust of they into execution the heir at law who be make a  defendant do not controvert either the will or codicil but admit they be duly  execute and to the purport as they be set forth in the bill it be move today  in behalf of the heir at law that all the titledeed and write of the late  archbishop estate may be produce for his inspection without point out in who  custody they be or specify the nature or substance of the deed he require the  attorney and solicitor general counsel with the motion insist that not  withstand motion of this kind be general make where a heir at law that be  disinheritedi the plaintiff yet there be equal justice that he shall have the  inspection of the deed where he be the defendant because where the estate be  total devise away from he it be but natural equity that he shall be satisfy  whether he be lawful disinherit Mr capper of the same side cite the case of  smith versus smith before Lord Hardwicke in in support of the motion Lord  chancellor I u not remember nor do I believe such a motion as be now make in  behalf of the heir at law be ever grant where he be a defendant to a bill of  this kind though I will not say but upon some particular circumstance he may  be entitle to what be now pray as suppose he shall in his answer insist upon  some old entail which have not be bar by a recovery and consequent still exist  or controvert the legality of the will or the execution of it or insist that  only a part of the real estate be devise away and of course the remainder  descend and he express claim it as heir at law but in the present case the  heir at law do not so much as deny any one circumstance either as to the  execution of the atkins archbishop will or his power of devise but admit the  whole as it be set forth by the plaintiff in his bill and bare say at the  close his answer that he be the heir at law of the testator be not sufficient  to entitle he to a inspection of the deed beside he do not so much as point  out what the deed be that he want to inspect nor the substance of they which  he may do though not in his custody upon the whole here be no pretence for  what the heir at law pray by the motion and therefore he must take nothing by  it