case gosse all versus tracy e contra Lord chancellor Nov p wms SC and note  there one examine as a witness when disinterest afterward become entitle to  the estate in question his deposition shall be read one Tilsley have make his  will that October r l and devise all his real estate to his mother and her  heir to which the defendant Tracy be privy and be a acquaintance and relate to  Mr Tilsley be entrust to draw the will he afterward come to mrs Tilsley and  surmise to her that the will be not sufficient and that it want to be guard as  be call it and thereupon draw another will that march r l as he pretend for  that purpose only but in truth have insert therein a devise of the real estate  to the mother only for life with a remainder to himself and his heir this last  will be not only gain by such a contrivance but the testator be then languish  of a palsy and be suppose to be non compos chin and die three day after the  make the second mention will r l and the question upon the bill and cross bill  be which will ought to take place but before the cause be bring to hear mrs  Tilsley die and devise the estate to the plaintiff gosse who in the lifetime  of mrs Tilsley have be examine as a witness but be now become plaintiff in a  bill of revivor Vernon chancery case it be therefore object that she be now  the plaintiff in the bill by her bring as devisee to mrs Tilsley in the nature  of a bill of revivor her deposition take in the lifetime of mrs Tilsley ought  not to be admit to be read and a case that Vernon chancery case er p at law be  cite where the deposition of a witness take while unconcern in interest can  not be read Le it be presume after he become interest the case here refer to  appear to be Tilleys case salk but it be answer that that opinion at law be  not because the witness after examination become a party but upon another rule  at law videlicet that where the witness be live and may be produce at the  trial the deposition of such witness shall not be read vide anon salk where  the deposition of a witness ex a i before a judge because go beyond sea can  not be read on his continue afterward in England for the rule for examine he  be make on a supposition that he will have be absent where the obligee make  the only live witness to the bind executor it have be rule at law that the  executor shall be allow to prove the hand of the witness vide the report of SC  as to this point different p wms haw v hand atk where one haw the either be  plaintiff as administrator in a original cause examine his son to the merit  the father die leave the son his executor the son become interest in the  estate to which his say father be administrator as such executor by have take  out administration de good non bring a bill of revivor but on the authority of  the principal case as above report his deposition allow to be read et vide  Glynn v bank of England ves as to the distinction take between the interest of  trustee and a executor in regard to their testimony vide Mabank v Metcalf atk  and case cite in not there Bellew v Russell ba be Mulvany v Dillon ibidem and  the Lord chancellor upon debate order the deposition to be read a issue be  direct whether the will of the that October be the last will of the testator  Thomas Tilsley sufficient to pass the land in question and a receiver in the  mean time appoint of the rend and profit of the premise in question Reg lib a  fol it be also object that a will concern land be only triable at commonlaw  and the party may there take advantage of any fraud or imposition on the  testator and therefore not proper to be examine into or set aside in equity  upon pretence of fraud or surprise Lord chancellor there may be a fraud in  obtain a will that may be relievable in equity and of which no advantage can  be take at law as if a man agree to give the testator pound in bankbill if he  will devise his estate to he and on the delivery of such bill make his will  and devise his estate to he and the bill prove to be forge or   and this be  former consider to be so the principal case ub sup Welby v Thornagh ux pre Ch  Herbert v lowns Ch Rep maundy v maundy ibidem but the law on this subject seem  now clear to be that equity can in no case set aside a will for fraud and  imposition because a will of personal estate may be set aside in the  ecclesiastical court for fraud and a will of real estate at law Bennet v vade  atk and case cite in not there Nelson v Oldfield ante p plume v beal p wms  James v greaves p wms Stephenton v gardener all ibidem tower v Andrews bro p c  Bransby v Kerridge bro p c web v Claverden atk anon atk Jones v Jones mere  price Jones v frost mad Jacob but this court will relieve against fraud in  respect of will as forgery after death of testator for though it can set aside  the probate if of personal estate it will decree executor or other act in the  imposition to be trustee for the person impose on Marriot v Marriot Str  Barnesly v Powel ves meadow ux v duchess of Kingston all Amb and if a party  claim under such will come for any aid in equity he shall not have it Nelson v  Oldfield ante p and if probate of a will come into equity on a incident in a  cause and that incident be admit by the party this court or a court of law may  determine it and hold the party bind by their admission Sheffield v duchess of  Buckinghamshire atk et vide Fonbl Tr Eq book part Ch and for further learning  on the jurisdiction of equity in matter of will bissell v Axtell ante p and  case cite in not there Vernon chancery case er p