case brown versus bradshaw all vern S c vin Abr title prerogative ante a  extent in aid istaken out by the king receiver against his own debtor against  who a commission of bankruptcy be before award and the assignee under the  commission bring their bill in chancery to set aside the extent in aid and  after year pendency of the suit at the hear the bill be dismiss for that the  court of chancery have no jurisdiction in case of this nature which be only  proper for the exchequer be the court of the king revenue and from which the  extent in aid issue and therefore only examinable there and if set aside here  yet the exchequer may carry on the process till the debt clear accord to the  course of the court Mr kingdom among other thing be farmer of the hearthmoney  under the crown and his account not liquidate in the exchequer and there be  account depend between Mr kingdom and Mr hind a goldsmith who become a  bankrupt and after his bankruptcy but before any assignment make by the  commissioner a extent in aid be take out in the name of kingdom against hind  and all his estate both real and personal be seize by virtue thereof the  plaintiff who be assignee of hind bankruptcy bring this bill to be relieve  against the say extent answer be put in and many proceed have in the cause so  that it have depend or year and now at the hear the defendant insist that this  precedent in chancery er p court have no jurisdiction in this cause for it be  a matter relate to the king revenue ought to be controvert in the court of  exchequer where there be precedent in chancery a court of equity for such  matter and not in this court for the plaintiff it be insist that this be real  the cause of the defendant and not the king that the farmer of the hearthmoney  be not in truth indebt to the king at least there be no liquidate debt and  that in reality the farmer of the hearthmoney be indebt to hind instead of his  be indebt to they that there be many precedent where extent of this kind have  be controvert in this court as Capel versus brewer vern S c in my Lord jeffery  time Cholmley versus Sturt vern S c cite ante S p contra in the time of the  late commissioner where the defendant who be a creditor by simple contract of  a person decease have prefer himself by such extent before other creditor of a  high nature andhe be decree in this court to refund that this be in nature of  a commission of bankruptcy which issue out of this court and therefore will  give this court jurisdiction though it have it not otherwise and if the court  of exchequer have a jurisdiction in such case sure this court have at least a  concurrent jurisdiction with it and if it have not a jurisdiction the  defendant ought to have take advantage of it by exception or demurrer but  ought not to be permit to do it now after fifteen year pendency of the cause  the attorneygeneral say there be in this cause a original extent for the king  as well as this extent in aid and till it appear the king debt be satisfy  accord to the course of the exchequer this court will not set aside the say  extent and it be not material that the king account be not liquidate for till  this they be debtor for the whole and the irregularity of the extent ought to  be controvert only in the exchequer from whence the extent issue and not here  and the court of exchequer be as ample a court of equity as this and the king  must proceed in the court of exchequer precedent in chancery if this court  shall hold plea in such case the consequence will be that the account of all  the king debt may be draw hither for nothing can be do in this matter till the  account be take and if that be take here yet the king will not be conclude by  it in the exchequer for till the account be discharge there he may take out  process here and it be the plaintiff own fault that he have travel so long out  of the way for he be tell of it at first the commissioner have no other right  than the bankrupt himself have and therefore if he can not have come hither no  more can they and the court of exchequer be first possess of the cause by the  extent and they have as supreme jurisdiction in the king cause and do often  grant prerogative order to remove cause out of other court where the  consequence wouldbe to have their proceed examine elsewhere as to the case of  Capel versus brewer the defendant there confess there be no debt and that he  be able to pay the king debt without aid and there the bill be only against  the party that have prefer himself and his simple contract debt and the decree  be only against he to refund upon the fraud and do not meddle with the extent  but here the bill be to set aside the extent and there the king can have have  no benefit of the extent though they be extent in aid the case of Cholmley  versus Sturt be the same with the other case and differ from the present case  as the former do and it be find by the inquisition that hind be indebt and  they ought to have traverse the inquisition if they will have controvert that  matter my Lord keeper after some time take to consider of it dismiss the bill  the suggestion whereof he say be only that hind be not indebt to the king or  to the farmer nor they to the king and that these extent be only a fraud to  protect the bankrupt that these matter be not proper before he nor in his  power to examine into be find and of record in precedent in chancery the  exchequer that it will be to the prejudice of the king for if these extent  shall be set aside the king will be deprive of the money he be in possession  of by they that as to any pretence of irregularity that be examinable in the  exchequer only that both the precedent cite be since this bill be depend that  in the case of sir Hugh Capel versus brewer the defendant confess that he have  sufficient to pay the king and that his debt be not in danger and that he take  out the extent himself Cholmley versus Sturt be a fraud and a extent in aid be  never make use of so far before the justice of the nation be distribute into  particular court which I can confound precedent in chancery er p