case margaret and and tourton v flower et all Lord chancellor Talbot Eq can ab  pl one sue as administrator of I S without show that I S die intestate yet a  administration take out of the archbishop court shall be intend to be a good  administration Administration grant in a foreign court as at parish not take  notice of in our court one may demurrer anew at the bar over as far as but  then on its be allow he can have his cost John Claud tourton a great banker at  parish make his will and thereby give several legacy and make one Theluson a  trench protestant residuary legatee and one Hammond a advocate of the  parliament at parish executor and die the testator have two brother who be  both dead but each of they leave a son who be or at least allege they be next  of kin to the testator tourton and these two nephew commence a process at  parish to set aside this will pen which suit both the nephew die and their  mother the now plaintiff take out letter of administration to their respective  decease son out of the spiritual court at parish and then proceed in their  suit to set aside the will of tourton whereupon a sentence be obtain to set  aside that part of the will by which the residuum be devise to this Theluson  by reason as be say that he be a protestant the sentence at parish also order  that Theluson shall account for so much of the asset as he have peer William  receive to the now plaintiff and deliver up to they all security book and  write relate to the personal estate of tourton the testator Hammond the  executor peer William er p die and one Pansier take out letter of  administration in the prerogative court of Canterbury with the will of tourton  the banker annex and now the plaintiff the mother bring their bill against the  defendant flower and Pansier the administrator with the will annex show that  several bind mortgage and security belong to tourton the banker be take in the  name of the defendant flower for which the defendant ought to account the  defendant flower demurrer there be no representative of the testator tourton  before the court for though Pansier the administrator with the will annex be  make a defendant yet it do not appear but that Hammond the executor have make  a will and leave a executor in which case the administration grant by the  archbishop of Canterbury to Pansier will be void but by the Lord chancellor  here be a administration take out of the archbishop court I will look upon the  same to be good then it be say for the defendant that admit the demurrer to be  ill for that there be a representative of the testator tourton before the  court still there want proper party because there ought to be administration  take out by the plaintiff the mother to their son now though the mother have  obtain letter of administration in the spiritual peer William court at parish  yet this be nothing to the purpose as it can not be take notice of in our  court and though it be true this be not the demurrer upon record yet the  defendant be at liberty to demurrer at the bar over as far as Lord chancellor  the defendant may demurrer at the bar over as far as and this demurrer for  want of the plaintiff have take out a good administration to their son be a  sufficient cause for without it the plaintiff can have no right and our court  can take no notice of what be do in the spiritual court beyond sea therefore  the demurrer must be allow but without cost because the demurrer on record be  a ill one and the plaintiff not to blame to argue it but then neither ought  the plaintiff to have cost the bill appear to be ill and to want party  forasmuch as proper administrator to the son be not before the court note what  be say in vern Durdant v Redman that cost ought to be pay for a new demurrer  insist on at the bar over as far as be not now the practice broderip v  Phillips in note to Durdant v Redman ub sup wood v Thompson dick Cawthorn v  Chalie cite in beam on cost n but see attorney general v brown swan where Lord  chancellor Eldon say the defendant avail himself of a demurrer over as far as  must pay the cost of that on the record but it must be to that to which he  have demurrer on the record pit v short Ves and he can demurrer by parole when  he have put in a plea only Durdant v Redman vern hook v Dorman S and S tailor  v sharp peer William er report date case tailor v sharp Lord chancellor Talbot  Eq can ab pl if a decree be obtain and enrol so that the cause can be reheard  then there be no remedy but by bill of review which must be on error appear on  the face of the decree or on some new matter as a release or a receipt  discover since in this case it be lie down as a rule by the Lord chancellor  that if a decree be obtain and that decree enrol so that the cause can be  reheard upon petition the party grieve can in no case set aside this decree or  obtain relief against it by a original bill for then the decree of the court  will peer William be opposite and contrary the one to the other which will  breed the utmost confusion wherefore the only remedy in such case be by bill  of review which must be either for error appear upon the face of the decree or  upon some new matter as a release receipt c prove to have be discover since  for unless this relief be confine to such new matter it may be make use of as  a method for a vexatious person to be oppressive to the other side and for the  cause never to be at rest vide standish v Radley atk gold v Tancred mk Norris  peer William er p v Le neve atk Wortley v Birkhead atk and ves S c anon Freem  Lord Portsmouth v Lord Effingham ves sen Worge v Bradley dick Wilson v web Cox  Willan v Willan Ves young Keighley Ves very v Phelps Ves obrien v Connor ba be  Manaton v Molesworth Eden