As to the first point, it is undoubtedly the general rule, established both in England and this country, that a court of equity will not entertain jurisdiction of a bill to set aside a will or the probate thereof. The case of Kerrick v. Bransby, decided by the House of Lords in 1727, is considered as having definitely settled the question. Whatever may have been the original ground of this rule (perhaps something in the peculiar constitution of the English courts) the most satisfactory ground for its continued prevalence is, that the constitution of a succession to a deceased person's estate partakes, in some degree, of the nature of a proceeding in rem, in which all persons in the world who have any interest are deemed parties, and are concluded as upon res judicata by the decision of the court having jurisdiction. The public interest requires that the estates of deceased persons, being deprived of a master, and subject to all manner of claims, should at once devolve to a new and competent ownership; and, consequently, that there should be some convenient jurisdiction and mode of proceeding by which this devolution may be effected with least chance of injustice and fraud; and that the result attained should be firm and perpetual. The courts invested with this jurisdiction should have ample powers both of process and investigation, and sufficient opportunity should be given to check and revise proceedings tainted with mistake, fraud, or illegality. These objects are generally accomplished by the constitution and powers which are given to the probate courts, and the modes provided for reviewing their proceedings. And one of the principal reasons assigned by the equity courts for not entertaining bills on questions of probate is, that the probate courts themselves have all the powers and machinery necessary to give full and adequate relief.
In England after the acts of Parliament had authorized devises of real estate, the same position was assumed by courts of equity in regard to such devises; it being held that any fraud, illegality, or mistake affecting their validity could be fully investigated and redressed in the courts of common law, where only devises were cognizable.
An occasional exception, or apparent exception, to this non-interference of courts of equity with wills and devises is found in the books; but these occasional departures from the rule are always carefully placed on such special grounds that they tend rather to establish than to weaken its force. One of the most prominent cases adverted to is Barnesley v. Powel, in which an executor and residuary legatee had procured probate of a forged will by fraudulently inducing the testator's son, the person most directly interested, to execute a deed consenting to its probate, and Lord Hardwicke declared the deed void, and compelled the executor to consent, in the ecclesiastical court, to a revocation of the probate. But in doing this his lordship made a labored argument to show that the ecclesiastical court had no power to annul that deed, and that had it attempted to do so the common-law courts would have restrained it by prohibition.
It has also been held that where a person obtains a legacy by inserting his own name in the will, instead of that of the intended legatee, he may be declared a trustee for the latter. In such a case the Court of Probate could not furnish a remedy, since to strike the bequest out of the will, or to refuse probate of it, would defeat the legacy altogether; and that court is incompetent to declare a trust.