Barnardiston DAVILE and peacock may the bill set forth that John Warcop make  his last will and testament in write in thereby devise certain land to trustee  in trust to permit Philadelphia his wife to take the profit for her life  except the yearly sum of pound issue thereout which he give to his daughter  Sarah to be pay to her sole and separate use notwithstanding her coverture the  testator far direct that after the death of Philadelphia his trustee shall pay  all the rend and profit except of his estate at east Tanfield to Sarah for her  respective use for her life at two halfyearly payment to be compute from  Philadelphias decease and that Sarah receipt shall be a sufficient discharge  notwithstanding her coverture he direct that after Sarah death the trustee  shall stand seize of all these land except the estate at east Tanfield to the  use of the issue of the body of Sarah and in default of such issue to the use  of Priscilla another of the testator daughter in fee in this will there be a  power give to Sarah by her last will in write to dispose of such part of the  land which lie at Ripon notwithstanding her coverture the bill far charge that  John Warcop die and after his death Sarah by her last will duly sign and  publish in the presence of three witness date the saint of February recite the  purport of her father be will do give and devise to the plaintiff father and  his heir all her right Title and interest whatsoever in the land at Ripon that  the defendant have get into possession and refuse to come to any account with  the plaintiff father in his lifetime or with her since his decease for the  rend and profit of the same whereupon she in order to recover possession of  the premise in Ripon be oblige to bring a ejectment against the defendant and  Barnardiston after a full trial recover possession of the same thereupon the  present bill be bring by Elizabeth Davile against Thomas peacock and Priscilla  his wife before mention and against several other pray that they may come to a  account with the plaintiff and pay her such rend and profit of the premise as  she have a right to receive and that the defendant John peacock and Thomas  peacock and his wife may deliver to the plaintiff all the titledeed and  evidence belong to the premise and that her Title at law thereto may be  establish and she quiet in possession the defendant by their answer dispute  the validity of the will of Sarah and bring a ejectment themselves in order to  dispute the force of it they likewise institute a suit in the prerogative  court of York against the present plaintiff to compel her to bring the will of  Sarah into that court in order that it may be duly prove thereupon the that of  February last a motion be make to this court pray that the injunction which  have be obtain till the come in of the answer may be extend to stay trial in  the second ejectment and the proceed which have be commence in the prerogative  court the court give no final opinion in this matter at that time but order  that the plaintiff time for show Cause against the injunction shall be enlarge  and that proceed in the mean time shall be stay on the that of march last the  matter come on again and then a order be make general whereby all proceed be  direct to be stay but notwithstanding this order the defendant Priscilla cause  sentence of excommunication to be read and publish against the plaintiff for  not produce the will of Sarah in the ecclesiastical court in order to be prove  Barnardiston on the that of April last the matter come on again and then the  order that Barnardiston er p the court be please to make be that the plaintiff  time for show Cause against the order of the that of February shall be far  enlarge and that all proceed at law and in the ecclesiastical court at York  for the matter here in question shall be in the mean time state and it be far  order that the defendant Thomas peacock and Priscilla his wife shall show  Cause why they shall not stand commit to the fleet for breach of the order of  the that of march last and it be far order that the benefit of the plaintiff  motion for extend the injunction to stay trial in the second ejectment and  also to stay the defendant Priscilla peacock proceed in the ecclesiastical  court at York touch the matter in question be save until the same time this  matter now come on again the attorney general move that the injunction may be  extend to stay trial in the second ejectment and that Priscilla may be commit  for her contempt in proceed to excommunicate the plaintiff contrary to the  intention of the order of the that of march which have be mention Lord  chancellor say that there be four thing for his consideration the first of  these relate to the regularity of the present injunction and if the matter  have be res integral he shall have doubt whether the present injunction be  regular by reason that it be grant without have be part of the prayer of the  bill and in these injunction for want of a answer the plaintiff must pray it  by his bill otherwise he will not be entitle to it and that have be often  determine and it be not sufficient in such case that the plaintiff shall pray  general relief but then the question be whether this defect in grant the  injunction original be not cure by what the defendant have do for the  defendant instead of come to take advantage of this irregularity have put in  Barnardiston his answer and move in the common form that upon come in of the  answer the injunction may be dissolve that be submit to the regularity of the  injunction and there be many case both at law and in equity where a matter be  irregular original and yet that defect be cure by what be do subsequent to it  but beside this question concern the irregularity of the present injunction  there be three other question proper to be consider one of they be whether  there be a ground on the Meritsof the case to continue the injunction till the  hear another whether in the nature of it it shall be order to extend to stay  the proceed in the ecclesiastical court and last whether on the circumstance  of the present case there be a ground to commit the defendant Priscilla for  what she have do the last of these question his lordship say he shall lie out  of the case because it be not pretend that she have carry on any proceed in  the ecclesiastical court subsequent to the order whereby she be express stay  from carry they on at the time she carry those proceed on there be only the  general order depend whereby proceed be direct to be stay it be hard to commit  a party for carry on proceed in the ecclesiastical court contrary to such  general word of a order make by this court if the injunction have be intend to  have stay the proceed in the ecclesiastical court that court shall have be  express mention in the order for the injunction to consider then the merit of  the case whether the injunction ought to be continue till the hear of the  Cause and on the nature of this case it be best for all party that it shall  here be a claim by the plaintiff under a power give to a feme covert to  dispose of a estate by a will notwithstanding her coverture on the other side  here be a defendant claim this estate contrary to this power insist that the  plaintiff have no Title under it by the original will under which the power be  create the devise of the estate be make to trustee it be doubtful point  whether in the issue Barnardiston there be a use execute or whether it be bare  trust for they with regard to the estate for life give to Sarah it be a plain  trust because the estate be give for her separate use and be it not for a  trust be raise that separate use can not be support the matter be indeed more  doubtful with regard to the issue whether this be not the trust of a estate  even as to they likewise and his lordship rather incline to think that it be  however he say that he will only continue the injunction till the hear of the  Cause upon these term that the plaintiff shall consent to deliver possession  as the court shall direct at the hear the question remain to be consider be  whether the injunction shall be direct to extend to stay the proceed in the  Ecclesi Barnardiston er p astical court and his lordship opinion be that it  shall not he say he do not see any reason indeed for proceed in the  ecclesiastical court in order to have the will of Sarah prove nor do he on the  other hand see that this court can grant a injunction to stop their proceed  the will be only of land and on that account not proper for the ecclesiastical  court to prove it in the next place it be not so proper a will as a  appointment and he do not know that the ecclesiastical court have a power in  such case to grant a probate of it however this do not give a court of equity  a jurisdiction to grant a injunction if any relief be to he have in such case  the proper one be to apply to the court of commonlaw for a prohibition court  of equity do not grant injunction where the ecclesiastical court proceed  without jurisdiction but where there be some equitable around stances between  the party and so his lordship be please to order accord