case cook versus parson lev Mod Ch case wms wms wms atk vezey a will of land  write by the testator and publish in the presence of three several witness at  three several time and attest by all at the say respective time in the  presence of the testator sufficient within the statute of fraud but whether  the man own the write to be his in the presence of the witness be sufficient Q  this be a bill of review to reverse a decree of my Lord Nottingham in for sale  of land subject by the will to the payment of debt the land be devise to  trustee and their heir to set and farm let and out of the rend without say and  profit to pay his debt and all his debt and legacy be first pay he give the  surplus to f S this will be write with the testator own hand as be prove and  publish in the presence of three several witness at three several time and  they all attest it in his presence but he do not sign it in the presence of  the second witness but only own the sign to be his hand and desire he to  attest the will as be prove by that witness the testator die leave a infant  heir and the land be decree to be sell and no day give the infant to show  cause against it the objection to the decree be precedent in chancery saint  that this be no good will within the statute of fraud and perjury because not  attest by all the witness at one time and that one of they do not see the  testator sign but only own that it be his hand dly if the will have be well  execute yet the word of it be not sufficient to ground a decree for sale be  only to let and set and out of the rend without say and profit to pay c dly  that though the word have be sufficient to bear a decree yet the infant shall  have have a day give he to show cause when he come of age my Lord keeper hold  a publication of a will before three witness though at three several time I  good within the statute burrow and think the write the will with the testator  own hand a sufficient sign within the statute though not subscribe nor seal by  he but doubt whether own the subscription to be his be sufficient but the  validity of the will be a question at law and therefore order it to be try as  to the word let and set and out of the rend to pay he hold they not sufficient  whereon to ground a decree for sale but the subsequent word that after his  debt and legacy pay it shall be to the trustee be sufficient there needs no  day be give the infant because the land be devise to the trustee so nothing  descend to the infant and there be no decree against he to join and the  trustee may have sell without come to the court for direction and yet if they  do come it may be a question if the infant heir ought not to have a day to  show cause but he think it not needful in this case because nothing descend to  he nor be there any decree against he to convey precedent in chancery er p