case colton V wilson et all Lord chancellor king Eq can ab pl one article to  buy land and the title be under a will not prove in equity against the heir  yet in some case equity will compel the purchaser to accept the title the  defendant Mr Wilson be a counsel of note at Leeds in Yorkshire and have  article to purchase a estate in Yorkshire for pound the article be date the  that of February and this bill be to compel he to complete his purchase and  pay his purchase money the case be thus this be part of the estate of Henry  tailor who have no issue but have two brother George and Hugh tailor the say  Henry tailor have mortgage the premise for a considerable sum amount to near  as much as the purchase money and owe other debt he make his will date the  that of February thereby devise all his real estate to his young brother Hugh  tailor and his brotherinlaw one reresby and their heir in trust to sell and  pay his debt and legacy and what remain after debt and legacy be to go by the  will to the testator peer William next brother and heir George tailor who be  beyond sea in the service of the east India company soon after the testator  die Hugh tailor the testator young brother and one of the trustee in the will  alone covenant by article date as above with the defendant Wilson to sell part  of the trust estate to the defendant Wilson for pound and to convey the same  to Wilson at his request who covenant to pay interest for the purchase money  from ladyday then next the creditor of the testator Henry tailor bring their  bill against the defendant Wilson to compel he to complete his purchase and to  pay his purchase money to the end they may be satisfy their debt the defendant  Wilson say he believe Henry tailor the testator do duly execute his will and  devise the premise to be sell and admit the article and that he be ready to  proceed in his purchase all proper party join the will be prove in this court  to be daily execute but the heir who be beyond sea in the east India company  service though make a partydefendant yet have not appear to or answer the bill  and the defendant Wilson though he be at first Willing to purchase the premise  and have enter on good part thereof yet other part of this estate on which he  have not enter be much out of repair the tenant rack and the rend likely to  fall he be now desirous of be discharge from his purchase and it be on his  behalf insist that this bring in the case of a will not prove in equity  against the heir it be a defective title see Sugdens vend and Purch that  Edward Morrison v Arnold Ves that none of the witness that have be examine for  the will can be read against the heir who in this case be probable adversary  and offend by the will or else it may be reasonable presume that he will peer  William though beyond sea have be prevail on to put in his answer to the bill  but that the heir may watch for a opportunity till the witness to the will  shall be dead when he will contest the will and though the defendant have say  in his answer that he be Willing to proceed in the purchase yet it be upon  term that all proper party shall join fine of which proper party be the heir  at law and that it will be a difficulty on the court to compel a unwilling  purchaser to accept of a purchase if there be any colour of objection to the  title Lord chancellor it be very proper that a will dispose of land shall be  prove in equity especial in the case of a modern will but I can say this be  absolute necessary to make out the title any more than it will be to prove a  deed in equity by which the estate be settle from the heir at law after the  ancestor death the will prevent and break the descent to the heir as much as a  deed and the hand of the witness to the will may be as well prove as those to  a deed and it be the better if in the endorsement to the will it be mention  that the will be attest by three witness who subscribe their name in the  presence of the testator now as it will be no objection to a title if a modern  deed on which the title depend be not prove in equity why shall it be so in  the case of a will where the same appear to be duly attest by three witness  who name be mention to have be subscribe in the presence of the testator but  in the present case it appear the defendant who article for the purchase know  at that time that the peer William heir be beyond sea and still accept the  title without insist that the heir shall join or that the will peer William er  p shall be prove against the heir also the defendant admit by his answer that  the will be duly execute and by enter upon great part of the estate have  himself execute the purchase for which reason let he pay the rest of the  purchase money with interest accord to the article and at the same time let  the trustee and mortgagee join in proper conveyance to the defendant the  purchaser Reg lib a fol by the name of Colton v Rousby so decree on a rehear  the former decree have discharge Wilson from his purchase it seem in this case  to have be a great help to the title that the mortgage make by the testator  and prior to the will be for the great part of the purchase money which must  be keep on foot for the protection of the title so Marlow v smith ante vol  Shapland v smith bro c Cooper v den Ves jun S c bro c c so Mitchell v Neal ves  sen Sheffield v Lord Mulgrave Ves Jun crew v Dicken Ves rise v Calland Ves  roake v Kidd Ves Vancouver v bliss Ves lowes v lush Ves Stapylton v Scott Ves  wheat v hall Ves sloper v fish V b Eyton v Dicken price Hartley v smith buck  Jervoise v duke of Northumberland I W martial v Bousfield mad say vide Biscoe  v Perkins v b