
    Norwood vs. Norwood.
    Bands,-being fíücommonentona tract of land, and theiauert¿énhe"ii fraiminl'i?«XÍ iir^and'iMidiir the whole proftis alleged^nfbe‘due to Mm from e, in agreement °befine between^hefn/'fim !and*vand roí- an aocointoftheV" and °tó thsuppresl anothrr ferry common fferiy/s chancerya^aimt's —Decreed, that the agreement be enforced, &e. and E^'one'hni"],'}-»irr',''°fre,nf the thne he to?k, and remined “he whole profits; ami ai,o lativu to all debts tS‘.n An aocomí beins: stated, the'faf of°April January 1800~to I,p with- interest January*woofthat the parties respee-ea'S»yotherVa)rcci" iract'of'i'md! ¿ci according to th<-a> e toíe-«Cve wc.U\ on* of the t:-ny, and Jj,1"'f,í^7 ^'y’hfm sec up, ¡y o onm appeal this decree wai in November s “|!<>'7«1 t»r pruTonents <;v«-tr fjV’ihf'Sl-nce in, «uve of the soil od on the land,and -- — f> so^ between the res-pccuve parts of jjV'ísoó, fik-ii’2 “«f !|!1! »Rsi;,st r,vof.t of the ferry ^ “j'j ,.“5 to the pro-eery on huforwr [“j]?;.?,idhiu> n^V “ »„ ““>>“*> üf u>f on th, m of June ¡my’^§*¡¡427 no iwere.t, &c. decree was, m S,“o»re\a7£7,ó <;™'entj®c, the proceeding, “A d«a*<-‘a dismiss the bin, aSfpirí if any he had. On the 7th of neeem-1>«- wos, k fl;ed a sf’sLt&i!. ?¡f,™eí emn that had then h-s _ mutual a'nd dSmt’d an S-,of' the An account of the byU‘lt4e,aaui!Uo? fMn ?!;?„ ’f-11,,0*' of June írn, IX'iMÍuíimifní teiest to thtí 32th of April 1800. On the ai,t of July m,K’sskm0rf'thi linn r™eived tííe -whole profits, s, «emher)ot;807¡ claimed to have ms deducted from the amount, Stated to due by the au* fected t? the hi-eluding in that *o“IprehcndS°rta See, whiefiere^ sai he had retied a?ahar's&c!Saiso edaUthree’“years i>i'ior toUie flag auditor's'1' report and s pay.to e.8í85 s from the i2th of 4ií'deereé s sothof iso), s sied a bin the'pi'mtf of "the *f'juif™'f!o?toiÜe aiioweíi by way óf amount'ofuie but mentioned decree, tionto suspenda» SSteedidi?ree— which injunction on motion of e to .function, an a"-«ountwaa ordered aiiowtos.by way TOount°oftá jodg-tL use of s,against 4uiíd heing2 "so thiufc hi joíSo n be dissolved, pro-no'eeiécute auMt So***"andha2 injunction was or-execution'ott^tbl fídgmente»t°iaw tmta further or-bysagSnstE,the creeobtalne'fhyE “Tbein’ deduct* ld3’&omS the a-íbrU“¡>iófUs f* July 1804 to June mouMofthejudg-mem;of n d for E"ti¡I,„tt E p.;y to s’ an 12 s, Sm tifís' decree a? 3HS?,£«£ taking out «era- !*«.“, “except for ¡>e; perpetually p oS Eiovfreiferred to, ihojM¡Hmnts rf jiioginent* tang-ói'sagaimt^mS tiiatcase mi the K-fi vis affirm-
    
    
      Appeal from a decree of the Court.of Chancery. To comprehend this case it is necessary to state the former proceedings between the same parties, they constituting a part of this case. On the 11th of May 1796, the first bill was filed by E, Norwood, (the appellee,) against S. Nor-'wood, (the appellant;) the object of which is fully stated in the decree by the chancellor. It was to obtain a decree enforcing an agreement entered into between the parties, on the 12th of November 1785, for a division oF a tract of land called United Friendship, devised to them by their father; and for an account of the profits of the ferry over PataPsc0 river, then held by the defendant alone, and who at that time had taken exclusive possession, not claiming d exclusively, but holding the whole profits to discharge a debt alleged to be due to him from the complainant, &c. After the coming in of the defendant’s answer, and the taking of testimony by the, parties, the cause was set down for hearing, and argued by counsel. 0 ° •* '
    
    Hanson, Chancellor, (December term 1798.) The comP^a'nant had three objects proposed by the bill — 1. To have an agreement for the division of the land enforced. 2. To have an account of the profits of a ferry supposed to be on the land in the bilI mentioned, conformably to the said agreement, and to be secured in the receipt ot one hair there-, of 'n future. And 3. To have the suppression of another ferry set up near the said common ferry by the defendant, It seems that the defendant considered it-of importance to prove that the ferry-house, See. are not (as was supposed time °f the agreement,) on the tract of land which was to be divided. He therefore obtained an order for laying down the lands for illustration. But if the chancel-. [0r conceived it of consequence to have the precise running of the land ascertained, he certainly could not, without vi-dating.the well known established principles of this court. undertake to decide on the location, but would refer it to a jury. He cannot, therefore, otherwise than regret that the parties have incurred an unnecessary expense. It appears thatth-'y were in possession of the ferry landing, &c. as part of the tract of land devised to them bv their father; that they agreed upon a division of the land as possessed, aml that they have since held according to that agreement. Tins court cannot, then do otherwise than say, tnat the a greement shall be enforced, and that the complainant is entitled to an accouut of the profits of the ferry, as prayed •* " * * by UlO DlSi.
    . As to the third object of (he bill, viz. To have, a sup-predion of (lie ferry, which is alleged to have been set up by the defendant contrary to the spirit ot the agreement, aud the sufficient ry to uie spirt rights of the complainant, there are not, perhaps, it ciremnsianees thereto relative, brought before the wiiiM uvrutji , , , , . ,, ,i*i -g'-? . • court, to enable the chancellor to decidí', tout supposing the case to be as he conjeciures, there is no decision that he knows oí in the books, or in the records of this court, which can be brought exactly m point, ke conceives, however, that the question maybe decided by common sense, without the aid of learning and authority. If persons agiec to setup, at their joint expense, a ferry, lor the accommodation of travellers, on a certain road, and the ferry is accordingly set up, aud then one of them set up another terry !or his own emolument, at the uistance oi 20, SO, 50, or 100 yards, from the old ferry,-to accommodate the same set of travellers, who is there that will not cerní the act to be m direct violation cu tne rights and in forests of his partner? But if the new ferry be only at a small distance, and yet is only for the accommodation of travellers on another road, who would, not otherwise cross at the old ferry, it cannot be supposed that the partner is entitled to have it suppressed,
    Now, whether the new terry in the present case be ot the latter or former kind,does not, as has been intimated, clear-Iv annear ‘J
    it is impossible tor the chancellor to proceed immediately to a final decree, and therefore the last question may remain for further consideration, and perhaps further prepararlo:) re-iative thereto may yet be.made- — --JJecreca. that the account with the complainant for one half of the profits of the ferry in the bill and answer mentioned, from the time the defendant took, and so long as he has retained the whole profits thereof; that the said .parties shall further account with each other relative to all debts whatever arising on the agreement aforesaid, or otherwise, ihat tne auditor this court state the account or accounts, &c.
    ,, . , , , ,, ... . . various reports were made by the auditor, under this decree of the chancellor, to which there were sundry ex-ceptions by the parties, and tiie chancellor’s decision thereon, and instructions to the auditor The auditor stated an account pursuant to the chancellor’s directions, in which the defendant was charged with the profits of the old ferry from the 6th of September 1795, to the 23d of June ! 796, when he erected a new ferry: the profits of both ferries were then charged to the 12th of April 1799, which, with interest thereon to the 31st of January 1800, left then a ba-due from the defendant to the complainant of ¿6776 15 6.
    Hanson, Chancellor, (February term 1800) — Decreed, the last stated account and report of the auditor be approved, ratified and confirmed; and that the defendant Pay to {*!e comP'a’nant *he sum of J776 15 6, with inte-rest from the 31st of January 1800, until payment. Also decreed, that the agreement stated in the bill for dividing ^ie land called United Friendship, shall be carried into ef~ feet, and that accordingly the defendant, by a good deed, &c. shall give, grant, &c. to the complainant, and his heirs, part of the said tract ofiand called United Friendship, which has long been, and now is, in the complainant’s possession, as stated in the bill, and admitted in tne an-swer under the agreement aforesaid; and the complainant manner shall convey to the defendant, and his heirs, all the other pari of the said land called United Friendship, nowin possession of the defendant, as stated in the bill and admitted hi the answer; and the iiitent of this decree, con-formably to the agreement of the parties, is that the branch from, &c. aha!! be Ihp division line, &c. Decreed also, that the defendant be enjoined to permit the complainant to take and to pay the complainant weekly one half of the profits arising from any ferry by the defendant, carried on at (.he place where the ferry mentioned in the bill waSkept, or so near the place as to take the custom which would otherwise go to any ferry kept at the said place. And that the defendant be further enjoined not to disturb, molest.or interrupt the complainant, m the enjoyment of one half or the profits of such ferry, or in carrying on a terry at the pfrce’ 'n ca'S3 the complainant shall think proper to provide for carrying on the same, on the defendant’s refus-ing or neglecting to carry the same on jointly with the complainani, or singly, allowing the complainant one half of the profits. And that the defendant be further enjoin; ed, not to change or stop or obstruct the passage of any road 011 ^tlier side of the river .leading to the said ferry, without the consent of the complainant; but that all access, as heretofore, shall be allowed by the defendant to every Person> caiT'agei horse, or other animal or thing, coming to the said ferry, or which would come to it in case there was no obstruction. And in case the defendant shall re^?se’ neglect or delay, to carry on a ferry with the com-P'altlan*: ^16 P*ace where the ferry aforesaid first menti-oned in the bill was carried on, and the complainant shall think proper to carry on the same for their joint benefit, he, the defendant, is hereby enjoined not to carry on, with-out.the complainant’s consent, any ferry which shall interfere wnu, or take custom from, the ferry carried on at the said place. And in case the complainant, on the defendant’s refusal, neglecting or delaying as aforesaid, shall actually set up and carry on a ferry at the place aforesaid, he shall pay weekly to the defendant one half of the profits thereof, after deducting the expenses incurred in so setting up and carrying on the ferry. Decreed also, that the de fendant pay to the complainant the costs by him expended., &c. From this decree the defendant appealed to the late court of appeals. -
    At November term 180S, that Court, [Jones, Potts and Dennis, J.] Decreed, that such part of decree complained of, for ratifying and confirming the last stated account and report of the auditor, whereby the defendant was adjudged and decreed to pay to the complainant the sum of ¿6776 15 6, with interest from the S 1st of January 1800, until the time of payment, be versed. Decreed also, that the complainant account with the defendant for the sum of £537 12 7, being the amount of the one half of the improvements erected on the - said irá ct of land called United Friendship, at thetime of the division thereof between the said parties; and that the defend-«‘ ant account with the complainant for the sum of £400, being the amount of the difference of soil, the respective parts of the said tract of land, and that the said two sums of £557 12 7, and ¿£406, bear interest from the 12th of November 1785. And that the auditor, in restating the said account, shall ateo charge the defendant with a moiety of the profits of the said ferry, agreeably to his said last stated account and report, with interest thereon, to be computed from the periods stated in the said account. And that the auditor, in stating such account, and ascertaining the profits of the new ferry set up by the defendant, shall ascertain the reasonable expense of setting up and establishing the sane, as well as afterwards keeping the ferry, and shall charge the complainant with one half part of the said expenses. Decreed, also, that all and every part of the said decree respecting the agreement stated in the said bill for dividing the land called Umtea Friendship, between the parties, and carrying the same into full effect, and all and every part of the said decree respecting the ferry; and the complainant being entitled to hold one half part of the same, and to'have and receive one moiety of the net profits thereof, as tenant in common with the defendant, conformably to the limitations and conditions contained in the said decree, be affirmed. Decreed also, that the chancellor pass such decree and order as shall be necessary to have the account stated in the manner herein directed, and on return thereof, that he pass a decree for the payment of principal and interest due the complainant; and that in the mean time he pass such further order and decree as may be necessary for carrying into effect those parts of the said decree, affirmed by this court. Decreed also, that the decree of the chancellor respecting the payment of costs by the defendant, be revere-ed, and hat each party pay his own costs in the court of chancery, and in this court.
    The second bill was aiso tiled by E. Norwood against S. Norwood, on the 25th of June 1800. It stated the former bill and proceedings — that the complain ant and defendant were seized in fee, as tenants in common, and that the former decree included an account of the profits only until the 12th of April 1799, as by proceedings on record in the high court of chancery will appear.’’’1 The bill also stated, that the ferry, and the profits thereof, were increasing daily from the great and multiplied resort of custom. In this case neither the title papers were filed to prove the equal rights of the parties to the ferry, as in the first bill, nor was the decree passed in the first cause, or any part of the proceedings in the same made a part of this case, except by the reference above stated. The defendant’s answer, filed on the 16th ofFebruary 1801, admitted they were seized in fee of United Friendship, and that the defendant had believed the ferry was on the same; but having discovéred that not to be the case, then claimed the ferry as his exclusive property, and denied the complainant’s right to the profits.
    On the 2d of November 1801, there was a decree for an account, and on the 12th of December 1801, the. auditor reported that there was due to the complainant, for his part of the profits from the 12th of April 1799 to the date of the report, including interest, the sum of ¿21445 2 4. There were several exceptions made to'the report by the defendant, which were decided on by the chancellor, and a new report directed, which was made on the 13 th of April 1802, making the sum due to the complainant ¿21427 11 6, to which there was also exceptions, but they were overruled; ' and a final decreé was passed on the 2d of June 1802, that the defendant should pay to the complainant the sum of/ ¿21427 11 6. From this decree there was an appeal to the court of appeals; and at June term 1804, that court reversed the decree of the'chancellor., on the ground (hat there was not sufficient evidence contained in the record to support the chancellor’s decree' — the original decree referred to in the bill not being exhibited; and making no part of the evidence in the court below. The chancellor was directed to dismiss the bill without prejudice to the equity of the complainant, if any, and- without costs. See 1 Harr. & John's. 525.- 1
    The third bill, (the dne now before the court on the defendant’s appeal) was also filed by E. Norwood against S. Norwood, on the 7th of December 1803. The bill stated the' decrees that had passed between the parties establishing-tlie mutual right of the complainant to the ferry, and claimed an acctmnt'of (he increased profits, and that the same-proceedings, when filed, might be part of the cause. The defendant’s answer admitted the decrees establishing the fights of the complainant' to the portion of profits. It then set up an exclusive right to the ferry. It also set forth the former decree of the chancellor, comprehending the profits from the 12th ot April 1799, to the 12th of December 1801, and stated the reversal of that decree, and relied on the reversal as a bar to any profits within that period. In consequence of the reversal of the decree by the court of appeals, the complainant filed, as exhibits in support of the third bill, all the proceedi gs on ¡he two first. On the 12th of December 1805, a decree passed by consent for an account, reserving all equity, and especially that part of the claim for profits which was included in a former decree reversed. The auditor, to ascertain the profits, made an average from the 12th of April 1799 to the 12th of April 1802. that is, for three years, from an account kept of persons and things passing over the ferry for'55 days, making the amount each day £2 12 l¿ and each night £Q 9 8. amounting together to JUS 1 9g- And from the 12th of April 1802 to the 30th of July 1804, the .average, was made from accounts kept by the complainant’s witnesses — each day £2 16 7i3,.imd each night £0 7 6, making together ¿f3 4 If. The auditor reported . on the 12th of April 1806, that there was due to the complainant from the defendant, ¿£3485 § 3, including profits to the SOth of July 1804, and interest to rise 12th of April 1806. On the 31st of July 1804, the complainant obtained the possession of the ferry, and since then held the possession, and received the whole profits. In order to obtain a deduction from the amount due to him by the auditor’s statement, the defendant petitioned the chancellor to have them deducted. On the 10th of December 1807", the chancellor passed an order confirming the report of the auditor of the 12th of April 1806, unless exceptions were filed. On the 15th of December 180", the defendant excepted to the report,— 1. Because the account included the profits comprehended in the reversed decree. 3. To all the profits charged three years prior to the filing of the bill. 3. Because interest is charged in the account to the 13th of April 1806, when long before that time the complainant had possession of the ferry. 4. Because he is not credited with his portion of the profits of the ferry since it had been in the possession of the complainant, during which time the complainant received those profits. 5. Because the accounts are founded on the complainant’s evidence, rejecting the evidence on the part of the defendant, and which was equally entitled to credit. On the 28th of December 1807, all the exceptions were overruled, and the report of the auditor of the 12th of April 1806, was confirmed by the chancellor, who decreed that the defendant pay to the complainant £3485 2 3, with interest thereon from the 12lh of April 1806, until paid, and costs. From this decree the defendant,ou the 27th of July 1808, appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued at December term 1812, before Chase, Ch. J. and Buchanan, and Eahais, J.
    
      
      T. Buchanan and Magruder, for the Appellant, contended
    1. That as the decree of the chancellor, on a for-jjjgj. appeai between the parties, was reversed, the subject matter of that decree could not again be brought into view, and ought not to have formed any part of the decree now before this court, notwithstanding the reservation of the complainant’s equity, in the decree of reversal, because the chancellor’s decree was reversed upon the ground that the evidence, upon which it was founded, was insufficient. A bill may be dismissed without prejudice, and to have the effect of a nonpros at law. 5 Blk. Com. 451. And so it may be dismissed, and yet equity be reserved, if it is not stated to be without prejudice. But a reversal on an appeal is different. The reversal here was on the merits, and not a dismissal. ■ There was no evidence in the record to support the decree. The appellate court acted on it, and gave an opinion on the case, which put an end to the subject matter of the decree on any future bill. Worthy vs. Birkhead, 3 Atk. 809.
    2. The complainant being in possession of the ferry in 180.6, when the audit was returned, on the defendant’s petition, he ought to have been credited with his half of the amount of the profits which the complainant had received after he had obtained possession. Suppose the defendant had paid money to the complainant, would it not have been credited? And if so, is not the receipt of profits to be taken in the same light as a payment in money? It was a proper discount, and allowable as well in equity as at law. The audit is always open and under the control of the chancellor, until a final decree on it. The sum to be discounted could have been ascertained from the proof furnished by the,complainant, whereon the audit was founded. The profits of the ferry were daily increasing, and if the complainant had accounted on his ow.n proof, he would have been benefited. , In Clarke vs. Magruder, 2 Harr. & Johns. 77, a discount was allowed, which arose after the suit was brought; and if such a discount was allowed at law, there is a stronger reason for its being allowed in equity. The reason the defendant did not insist on the discount sooner, may be accounted for by the proceedings which took place in the cause. Until it was known how the issue, which was sent to the county court for trial, would be found, it was unnecessary to claim the discount — that issue being for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the ferry was on the tract of land called United Friendship; and if it had been found not to be on that land, the complainant’s claim, was at an end.
    3. Part of the claim was barred by the act of limitations. The bill was filed on the 7th of December 1803, and all claim for profits prior to the 7th of December 1800, was barred by the act of limitations, which was relied on by the defendant, and if insisted on in chancery, it must be allowed. It cannot be said that the former bill, where the decree was reversed, will prevent limitations from operat - ing. It cannot be right for the complainant to take advantage of.his own negligence. This bill was filed, before the reversal of the former decree, in which profits were claimed that had accrued after the 1st of December 1801, but after the reversal, the complainant makes his bill to include all antecedent piofits since the 12th of April 1799. To show that limitations will bar in a case like the present, they referred to 1 Barr. Chan. Pr. 376. lleude, vs. Reads, S Fes. 744: and Hercy vs. Ballard, 4 Bn. C. Rep. 468.
    
      Key and Shaaff, for the Appellee,
    1. Upon the effect of the reversal of the former decree by the court of appeals, and to show that it operated only as a non pros at law, they cited Anon. 1 Chan. Cas. 15§; and Shepherd vs. Tit-ley, 2 Atk. 354.
    2. The auditor’s accounts were closed and returned on the 12th of April 1806, including piofits to the 30th of July 1804, and interest to the 12th of April 1806. An’ order for confirmation was obtained. Suppose afterwards an application had been made for new evidence, it would have been an appeal to the discretion of the chancellor, and he might or might not admit it. The petition of the defendant was unaccompanied with proof that the complainant had possession, and had received the profits. Nor docs it state that he would be willing to take the average value of the profits as had been decreed to the complainant; but claims an account to be taken of the profits. If the chancellor had complied with the prayer in the petition, there would have been no end to the ease so long as the complainant received any profits. The discount was not claimed in any definite form in which it could be allowed. It is evident the object was delay. The audit had been closed, and an order for confirmation had passed. In such a case there is no instance of opening the audit to admit new proof. The case was set down for hearing; and to open the case then for the purpose of taking additional proof, is discretionary with the chancellor, and no appeal lies from his admitting, or refusing to admit it. The audit brings the profits received by the defendant down to the 30th of July 1804, during the time he had possession. This closed the subject, and the defendant’s petition to open the audit to admit his discount of profits received by the complainant after the 30th of July 1804, without exhibiting any proof that they had been received by him, would lead to endless litigation.
    3. The act of limitations may be resisted on two grounds —-1st. It does not attach in any case in the nature of a trust. The defendant is considered as a receiver or trustee of the complainant. It had been decreed that they were tenants in common of the ferry; and the defendant had received one half of the profits for the benefit of his co-tenant, the complainant. In such a case 50 years would Hot have barred the claim of the complainant. The act of -the defendant was the act of the complainant, and the act of [imitations could never attach. Lloyd vs. Gordon, g Harr. † M-Hert. 254. 2d. A bill had been filed by the complainant, and a decree passed in his favour, but which, on an appeal, was reversed, This was not the fault of the complainant, it was the fault of the chancellor, who erred in deciding the case. The decree having been reversed, he had a right, under the statute 21 Jae. t, ch 16, to bring a new bill within one year after the reversal. Here the bill was filed before the reversal; and the statute relates as well to a case decided on its merits, as to any other. In SchnertzeU vs. Chapline, 3 Harr. 4" M'Hen. 439, thejudgment was arrested because the damages laid in the declaration was not within the jurisdiction of the court, and a new action was brought, and the plaintiff recovered.
    
      Curia adv. vult.
    
    On the 29th of.December 1807, S. Norwood filed his bill against E. Norwood, claiming the profits of the ferry from the 31st of July 1804, the time when the latter obtained the possession of the ferry, and praying lor an account, &c. and the payment of his proportion, or & discount from the decree obtained against him. by E. Norwood in December 1807, and also for an injunction suspending all proceedings on that decree. The chancellor, by Ids order of the 19th of January 1808, granted an injunction to suspend all proceedings on the decree, until the further order of the court. At February term 7 808, E. Nor-wood petitioned the chancellor for a dissolution of the injunction; and the chancellor, considering that he was entitled to a dissolution, after deducting what appeared from the testimony before the court to be due to A. Norwood, directed the auditor to state an account in a particular manner for the information of the court; which being done, the chancellor passed an order at July term 1808, dissolving the injunction, provided that i?. Notwood should not he at liberty to execute at that time for more than the sum of J22.S80 5 2. And the amount of the judgment by R. Dulany, executrix of D. Dulany, for the use of 8. Norwood, against E. Nqrúiood, for ¿£318 12 5, with interest and costs, having been deducted, an injunction was ordered suspending execution on that judgment until further order. At February term 1809, the chancellor passed a decree to account. After many reports and accounts having been returned, and various exceptions, &c: the chancellor, by his final decree passed at December term 1811, decreed that E. Noiwood should pay to 8. Norwood the sum of 43211 12 5, with interest thereon from the 1st of December 1811, until paid, and costs. This decree was founded upon the auditor’s account, in which E. Norwood was charged with one half of the amount of profits received from the. ferry from the 31st of July 1804.' to the 24th of June 1810; also with the amount of the judgment and costs obtained by R. Dulany, executrix of D. Dulany, and in which he was credited with the amount of the decree by him obtained against S'. Norwood, in December 18Of. From this decree É. Norwood appealed to this court.
    As tliia last appeal was depending when the argument was had on the other appeal, the court delayed deciding on the (alter until hearing an argument on the former. The former appeal was argued at the present term before Chase, Ch.J.and Buchanan, Nicholson, and Martin, J.
    
      Nhaaff for the Appellant, (JB. Norwood,) and by
    
      Harper and Magnuler, for the Appellee, (61 Norwood.)
    
   The Court,

on the first appeal, decreed, that the decree of the court of chancery be affirmed, with costs. Decreed also, that E. Norwood, the appellee, be perpetually enjoined from taking out execution, or proceeding on the decree of the court of chancery, hereby affirmed, for the sum of ,£3185 2 3, with interest and costs, exceptas to tiie costs adjudged by this court to the appellee on this appeal; and that the appellant, S. Norwood, be perpetually enjoined from taking out execution, or proceeding on the judgment by the executrix of D. Du!any against E. Norwood for the sum of £318 12 5,.with interest and costs, referred to in the proceedings in this case; the said sums of ¿'8485 2 8, and ¿318 12 5, having been embraced and settled between the parties in a subsequent decree of the chancellor between them, which last decree has been affirmed by this court during the present term.

The Court, on the second or last appeal, affirmed the decree of the court of chancery, (for £211 12 3, with interest from the 1st of December 1811, until paid, and costs,) with costs.

DECREES AFFIRMED, &C„  