
    A. & T. Underhill against Van Cortlandt and others.
    
      August 14th.
    It is not of course to enlarge the rule to pass publication, and it will be refused where there has been great delay : but it was granted, until the plaintiffs had sufficiently answered a cross-bill of the defendants.
    A MOTION was made, that the rule to pass publication, in this cause, be enlarged, until the plaintiffs had put in and perfected their answer to a cross-bill filed by the defendants.
    Issue had been joined, and witnesses examined on the part of the plaintiffs, when one of the defendant’s died; and the answers of all the present defendants to the bill of revivor, and supplemental bill, were not put in until the 8th of May last; and the cross-bill was filed the 23d of June last. The rule to pass publication, or show cause, was entered on the 7 th of July last; and the time for the present plaintiffs to answer the cross-bill will not expire until the 1st of September next.
    
      
      Munro, in support of the motion,
    cited Wyatt's Pr. Reg. 87. and Cooper’s Eq. Pl. 87.
    
      Lee, contra,
    resisted the application, .on the ground that the defendants had been as dilatory as possible, in the original suit, as well as in the prosecution of the cross bill, and cited Aylet v. Easy, 2 Ves. 336.
   The Chancellor.

The motion to enlarge -publication is not of course, but the circumstances of delay are not sufficiently strong to induce a refusal of it, altogether, in this case. To enlarge the rule for publication, only until the present plaintiffs shall have sufficiently answered the cross-bill, puts it in their power to put an end to the delay, at any time, and to bring on their cause to a hearing.

Motion granted.  