
    
      William H. Lorton et al v. Samuel Seaman et al.
    
    Costa when to be manded!ly de'
    A. Thompson, for complainants;
    H. F. Clark, for defendants.
   The chancellor decided, in this case, that in order to bring a Party hi to contempt for disobeying an order of the court, for the payment of interlocutory costs, &c., it is necessary, under the provisions of the revised statutes, (2 R. S. 535, § 4,) that a demand of such costs should be made of the party himself, and that it is not" sufficient to demand them of his solicitor.

Motion for precept to compel payment of costs denied; but without costs.  