case nicholas and nicholas Eq Abr c S c atk in case in which chancery and the  spiritual court have a concurrent jurisdiction chancery will not hinder the  spiritual court be first possess of the case from proceed in it the plaintiff  testator by will among other thing give two child pound apiece and one of they  be and the other year of age apply by their own father to the court of arch  and have he appoint their guardian who thereupon cite the plaintiff the  executor into the spiritual court and libel he for substract the legacy give  to his two daughter whereupon the plaintiff the executor bring his bill in  this court pray that a account may be take here and that in regard the legatee  be infant and can not give any legal discharge for the legacy that he may  bring it into court to be put out for their benefit and by this bill offer to  bring the money into court and pray a injunction to stay the proceed in the  spiritual court and on precedent in chancery motion have a injunction till a  answer and further order to this bill the defendant the infant by their father  and guardian plead the whole proceed in that court and the pendency of that  suit before the bill bring it be argue by dr strahan and dr sayer two civilian  in support of the jurisdiction that the spiritual court have always be allow  to have a concurrent jurisdiction with this court in case of legacy arise mere  out of a personal estate as these be that in all case of concurrent  jurisdiction which court soever be possess of the cause have a right to  proceed and can not be restrain or prohibit by the other court that this be  call in law a prevention of jurisdiction that it be not only so by the civil  law but also in all other court which have a concurrency of jurisdiction as  between the exchequer and the chancery the county palatine and the chancery c  that the father in this case be a proper guardian and that he must give  security before he can have the child S legacy by the course of the court that  on application if either he or any of his two surety die or become suspect as  to his circumstance that the court will oblige they to give better security  that they can not indeed say that by the course of that court the guardian  will be oblige to pay interest for the legacy which be urge on the other side  as a argument in favour of chancery that they will order the money to be put  out at interest for the benefit of the child but the civilian insist that they  be first possess of the cause this court will not enjoin they from proceed to  recover the child legacy Lord chancellor agree that in case of a concurrent  jurisdiction their argument be just and that this court have a jurisdiction to  see that the executor who be but a trustee perform his trust and that be the  jurisdiction this court exercise in such case that precedent in chancery if  the plaintiff be in earnest he ought not only to have offer to bring the money  into court but lie ought actual to have bring it and that have at once put a  end to the proceed in the spiritual court yet his not do of it plain prove  that this bill be only for delay and keep the money in his hand and therefore  order the injunction to be dissolve unless the plaintiff within ten day bring  the pound and interest from a year after the testator death into this court  otherwise they be at liberty to proceed against he in the spiritual court  since if this practice shall prevail he may keep the injunction on foot as  long as he please and whenever he have a mind to it dismiss his own bill Mr  mead cite a case where this court the last seal grant a injunction to stay the  husband proceed in the spiritual court for a legacy give to his wife because  the court can not oblige the husband to make a adequate provision or  settlement on his wife as this court will do before they will permit he to  receive the legacy atk S p and say the cause be strong in respect of the  security for the benefit of the infant which carry interest and that the least  security this court require be a recognizance with two surety which affect the  land precedent in chancery er p