case earl of Kildare versus Eustace eoden die in court Lord chancellor master  of the roll chief baron Atkins ante case this cause stand this day again in  the paper to be hear it be insist for the plaintiff that let the vest point be  one way or other the plaintiff have a proper case for a decree for that he  have apparent a right at least to one moiety and though in case the estate in  law vest in the king so that his patentee have a proper remedy at law to  recover the right yet there be a just occasion to come Vernon chancery case  into this court as there be in regard that the Lord Clare be the patentee in  trust for the plaintiff when the court by that mean be possess of the cause  and the right full examine to here the court will not after that send the  plaintiff to law this court never decree a suit when it may decree a remedy as  in the case of a devise of land or where a bind be take in trust and the  trustee refuse to let his name be make use of the court will decree the duty  and not a action to be bring in the trustee name and the defendant Eustace can  in reason oppose a decree for if the estate in law be in he he confess it to  be only a trust and if it be not in he he can be prejudice for he disclaim to  have any interest and the judge in Ireland have hold that the plaintiff can  not recover at law because the estate in law be not in the king patentee and  the court of equity in Ireland have refuse to decree for the plaintiff because  the that be of another opinion and think the plaintiff have a proper remedy at  law it will be hard for this court when they be satisfy the plaintiff have a  plain right to send he to law and as to the objection that it can not proper  be try here whether the Fitzgerald that be the beneficiary and trust be the  same person with the Fitzgerald that forfeit there be little reason in that  objection in the case of Barnewell and Rochfort roll abridgment fol a trial be  direct touch a feoff of land in Ireland which certain be much more local than  the point in question Lord chief baron Atkins upon read the second act of  settlement be of opinion that the estate in law absolute vest in the king and  not that the trust only vest but yet notwithstanding think the plaintiff may  have a proper case in equity in case a plain right appear for he but he now  doubt whether this court will direct a trial whether the Fitzgerald that be  the nocent or forfeit person and the Fitzgerald that be the beneficiary and  trust be one and the same person Vernon chancery case master of the roll as to  the vest point think the act of settlement be not like the statute of Henry  VIII c and that this case differ from the Lord sheffields case and Dowdales  case for there the vest be for the king use but by the act of settlement the  king be to take nothing to his own use but be in the nature of a trustee  though contrary to the general receive opinion that the king can be a trustee  the king be consider as quasi a trustee in the case of a lunatic Robert case  atk that the king may be consider in this court a royal trustee vide pen v  Lord Baltimore ves but in the main he be of opinion that the trust only vest  and as to the question whether the person that forfeit and the beneficiary and  trust be one and the same person he think the evidence be full and plain that  it be the same person in fortytwo he be outlaw by the name of Fitzgerald of  Christian town the lease in trust be make by Fitzgerald of lady town and the  inquisition find that Fitzgerald of Christian town be afterward of lady town  but in case the court doubt of that matter he think this court may well direct  a trial at law Lord chancellor be satisfy upon perusal of the act that the  estate in law vest in the n but that the plaintiff may notwithstanding be  proper for a decree and take it that this court may very well direct a trial  whether the person that forfeit and the beneficiary and trust be one and the  same person and cite sir William Tyrringhams case who be so powerful that  right can not he have against he in the county of buck the venue be change  upon a bill bring here pure for that purpose vide Ewelme hospital v Andover  ante contra vide Barbone v burn ante and he take the point in this case rather  to be whether there be ground for he to doubt whether it be the same person  and therefore declare Vernon chancery case er p in case the defendant will not  consent to try that matter here he will decree it without upon more and  thereupon a trial be direct by consent to he have in the county of Salop but  with this at the instance of the chief baron that in case the verdict go for  the plaintiff it shall be without cost but if against he he shall pay cost