case the earl OF Kildare versus sir morris Eustace of purifying Lord  chancellor Lord chief justice Beddingfield Lord chief baron Atkins ante case  post case this cause come on this day to be reargued there be two point make  by the plaintiff counsel saint whether the estate in law be execute by the act  of settlement dly admit it be so yet whether the Vernon chancery case  defendant have no right to one moiety as appear by his own answer either in  law or equity the plaintiff ought not to have a decree for that moiety as to  the first point the Lord chief baron seem still to doubt whether the estate in  law be execute by this statute but the Lord chief justice and Lord chancellor  be clear of opinion that by the particular pen of this statute not only the  trust but the estate in law be actual vest in the king and well grant to the  plaintiff Vernon chancery case er p trustee afterward the Lord chief baron  think the estate in law absolute vest in the king so the Lord chancellor of  that opinion post as to the second point it be insist on by the counsel for  the plaintiff that he ought to have a decree for the moiety for that it appear  by the defendant own answer that he have no title thereunto take Fitzgerald  who be the owner of this estate to be one and the same person with Fitzgerald  who be the nocent and forfeit person as be clear by the proof in the cause he  be the same person it be then against conscience to suffer the defendant who  have the good fortune at law to obtain a verdict for the whole to take out  execution thereupon and to put the plaintiff about to try his fortune at law  again and the rather for that it have be a doubt and there be different  opinion among the judge in Ireland whether the estate in law be vest in the  king or not and though it be object that where a man have a title at law he  ought to pursue his legal remedy and shall not have a decree in equity vide  Mitf Tr et seq d edit yet that be not always so and the daily practice of this  court in many case be otherwise as where a creditor by bind or the like bring  his bill for a discovery of asset and have prove asset here he shall have a  decree for his debt and not be put to prosecute at law for the same so where a  bind take in trust the trustee refuse to let his name be make use of the court  will decree the duty and not a action to be bring in the trustee name dict arg  post S c and in many such like case the court never send the plaintiff to law  where a title appear for he and beside in this case Vernon chancery case there  be a necessity of a decree for the plaintiff against his trustee who be only  patentee in trust for the plaintiff and it appear to the court that he have a  title against all the other defendant the decree ought to be uniform and make  against they all and this the court think reasonable but in regard this matter  be new and have not be before under consideration the court take time to  consider further of it and to hear what the defendant counsel have to say to  it