case leighton versus sir edward leighton Eq can ab pl stram in case of a trust  estate devise to be sell or devise to I S if the will be dispute after two  trial in favour of the will equity will grant a perpetual injunction see  Robinson v Byron Cox Devonsher v Newenham Sch l the defendant sir Edward  leighton father mortgage and afterward sell the manor of Balsley in the county  of Montgomery in Wales to his brother the plaintiff and upon his death the now  sir Edward Leighton set up a old entail create about year since and get into  possession the plaintiff bring a ejectment which be try in Wales and a verdict  pass for the defendant upon produce a old inquisition find the entail but  there be no deed produce create this entail peer William the plaintiff at law  bring his bill in this court set forth that the write be all in the defendant  hand and pray that they may be produce and that the defendant may not set up a  title under any trustterm upon which the Lord Cowper decree that the trial  shall be upon the mere right in a ejectment and that no trustterm mortgage or  lease shall be set up but that the defendant shall make title only under the  entail a injunction in such case will not be grant on motion before the hear  of the cause Barney v Luckett Northey v pierce S S accord it be try in  Shropshire where before Mr baron price the now defendant sir Edward Leighton  have a verdict but the judge certify against it a new trial be grant to be at  the bar of the exchequer which be have and a verdict for the plaintiff there  be afterward a trial likewise in the king bench and a verdict again for the  plaintiff and now on the equity reserve it be pray that the plaintiff shall  have a perpetual injunction with cost Lord Parker the plaintiff have no reason  to complain as he do of the inconvenience that there be no end of trial in  ejectment for the two first be find against he but it be true the two trial at  bar which be by the direction of the court be for he I do not see what this  court have be do unless it shall now grant a perpetual injunction barefoot v  fry bunb if a trust estate be devise to be sell and on a bill bring against  the trustee to sell the heir contest the will after two trial the court will  grant a perpetual injunction in the case of the earl of bath v Sherwin pre  Charles the title be a mere legal one where after several ejectment and five  verdict for the earl of bath he bring a bill of peace for a perpetual  injunction the Lord chancellor Cowper think this too much peer William for he  to grant but seem to recommend it to the plaintiff as a cause proper for the  house of lord I bro p c and Edward bro p c and on a appeal the lord grant a  perpetual injunction which I take as a reversal of the Lord cowpers decree and  as a precedent in the high court of what ought to be in this case consequent  it be very improper say that only the house of lord in such case shall grant a  perpetual injunction for that house on appeal give such a judgement as the  court below ought to have do this court in direct trial and order write to be  produce have peer William er p be do nothing all this while if it can grant a  perpetual injunction which real after so many trial seem to be for the benefit  of both party as to the objection that in the case of the Lord bath v Sherwin  the lord will not have grant a perpetual injunction but for its be a odious  cause tend to bastardize a noble person after his death I answer it do not  tend to bastardize the duke of Albemarle but to make he the legitimate son of  Radford however the principal case be such as not in its nature to be entitle  to any favour for the defendant sir Edward Leighton be contend against a  purchase under which there have be possession for very many year against a  sale make by his own father to his brother and be set up a old entail of about  two hundred year stand to defeat this purchase and if there be not the clear  proof imaginable of such a entail as possible there be not the jury be in the  right not to find it it be certain a inconvenience in the law that there shall  be no end of trial in ejectment and that one trial in a real action which  perhaps may be at a trial by nisi prius shall be final when at the same time  twenty trial in ejectment and at the bar in Westminster peer William hall will  not be conclusive but this can proper be urge in the present case when upon  the two or three first ejectment the verdict go against the now plaintiff who  have they be conclusive must have be bar but as to the cost in this court the  plaintiff William Leighton have have relief by produce the write and prevent  the defendant from set up any old term and it do not appear that the defendant  sir Edward Leighton the heir of a ancient family have so far misbehave as that  he ought to pay cost though he shall lose his own cost the right appear  against he but the plaintiff to have the cost at law for all the trial the  decree be affirm in the house of lord with pound cost march bro p c and Edward  bro p c where the proceed on the different trial be more full state and in  which it be say that the single ground of grant the trial at the bar of the  king bench be that the defendant shall not in a case so long litigate be  conclude by one verdict