case edward archer plaintiff thomas moss all defendant refer to Allen v  MPherson h l Cas Eq can ab pl pl S c Lord chancellor about June fraud in  obtain a will relate only to a personal estate be not examinable in chancery  after the will be prove in the spiritual court so long as that probate be in  force post case John archer the plaintiff uncle who die in January have before  when in perfect health make his will and thereby give the plaintiff the great  part of his personal estate to the value of pound as be prove in the case  Vernon chancery case but one Bridget Sandyman his maidservant have in sickness  prevail upon he as be allege to make another will and to marry her a week  before his death when he lie in his sick bed at six of the clock at night  though it be real prove by two minister that she be a year before actual marry  to the defendant moss and be then his wife and that moss procure the licence  for the marriage of archer to Bridget and that though they have set up a will  date a week before archer death whereby Bridget be make executor and all give  to her and that she have suppress the former will by which the plaintiff claim  yet that will so by her set up be prove in the prerogative court and she have  make her will and moss her executor though in this case there be as gross a  practice prove as can possible be in gain that will by Bridget from archer and  that he be not compos neither when he make it when his nor when his pretend  marriage be to Bridget and the he know in his health that she be marry to moss  and the matter in question be pure relate to the personal estate the Lord  chancellor be of opinion that while that probate stand this matter be not  examinable in chancery and though the fraud be full prove as aforesaid and be  open to he he will not hear any proof read but dismiss the bill vide goss v  Tracy p wms and case cite in note there so plume v beal ibidem Stephenton v  gardener p wms and where a devise to pay debt and legacy whatever the  ecclesiastical court will establish as a legacy it be sufficient to create a  charge such dict per Loughborough Lord chancellor Habergam v Vincent Ves jun  and even in the case of a will of land it have be decide in the house of lord  that this court can set it aside for fraud but it must fir be try at law on a  issue direct devisavit well non July Bransby v Kerridge Eq can ab bro  parliament can though it appear to have be consider former that there be case  respect will of land in which equity will relieve for the fraud goss v Tracy  ub sup post SC et vide Farrington v I nightly p wms and case cite in note  there Vernon chancery case er p Vernon chancery case de term S michaelis in  curian porter