
    Ferris against Nelson and Nelson, executors, &c. Nelson and Nelson, executors, against Ferris.
    
      June 7th.
    
    To a bill to correct a mistake in a deed, the defendants put in an answer, and, also, filed a cross bill for discovery. The plaintiffin the original bill having, as of course, without notice, dismissed his bill: Held, that the defendants were not only entitled to costs on the dismissal of the plaintiff’s bill, but, also, to the costs of their cross bill, as a part of their defence in the original suit.
    BILL to correct a mistake in a deed. An answer was put in by the defendants JY. and JY. / and a cross bill filed by them for discovery. The plaintiff in the original suit entered an order, as of course, and without notice, for the dismissal of the original bill, with costs. The question raised was, whether the defendants JY. and JY. were not, also, entitled to the costs of their cross bill, as being a necessary part of their defencé.
    
      Silliman, for the defendants,
    N. and N. He cited 1 Maddock’s Tr. 176. Peake’s N. P. 203. Mitf. Tr. 165. 3 Atk. 812. Cooper’s Tr. 86.
    
      Dyckman, contra.
   The Chancellor held,

that the defendants in the original suit were entitled to be paid the costs of their cross bill, as being part of their defence in the original suit, and as being no more than a part of their just indemnity for a groundless suit against them. It was thereupon ordered, that in the taxation of costs in the original suit, the costs of the cross bill, together with the costs of this motion, should be allowed to the defendants, and that the cross hill stand dismissed, with costs to be taxed as aforesaid, in favour of the plaintiffs in such cross bill.  