
    Hoffman vs. Baker.
    Where a bill was fikd'in elmiieerx» to set asida and annul a decree before obtained by the defendant against the eoniplainant, oh the ground of fraud practiced by the defendant in ob-tnim')c that decree,there appearing to be no evidence of fraud«t be bill was dismissed, but without coifs. On an appeal to the court of appeals by the complain ant, that court affirmed so much ot the decree as dismissed the bill, but reversed that part of it which directed that the dismissal should be without 'costsi and decreed that the appellant pay to the appellee his costs hicmTpd in both courts "
    Appeal from the Court of Chancery, dismissing the bill of thy complainant, (now appellant,) which was filed on the 5th of April 1802. Thy object and nature of the bill is stated ip the decree.
    Kilty, Chancellor. (July term 1806.) The object of the bill, as stated therein, and in the arguments of the ■ counsel, is to set aside and annul the decree heretofore obtained by the defendant against the complainant, in this court in October 1801, on the ground of fraud practised by the defendant in the obtaining that decree.
    It becomes necessary therefore to examine bow far this-allegation is supported by the evidence in the present suit. This, consists of the plot returned, by which the complain-' ant contends, that it appears the locations of the lands in controversy are different from what they were represented to be in the former case. But this circumstance, suppos- ‘ ing it to be clearly established, does not amount (o a proof of fraud as to the former decree. One part of the tesffsnony, admitted in the former case, was the deposition of John Foster, which the complainant alleges was repugnant to the truth; and another was the cerlificate of Bell, asan assistant surveyor to Gist, which the complainant states was agreed by his counsel to be admitted as evidence upon the false suggestion of the defendant. Of this fact there appears to be no proof; and although fraud may be inferred from a variety of circumstances combined together, it is not tobe presumed merely because the fact may on the present proof be different from what the evidence, admitted through mistake, showed it to be.
    It is not necessary or proper to go into the former decree on the evidence then produced, and it must stand, unless it can be set aside according to the known and established principles of this court. Decreed, that the bill of the complainant be dismissed, but without costs. From this decree the complainant appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Nicholson, Gantt, and Earle, J. by
    Johnson, (Attorney-General,) for the Appellant;
    and fey
    
      Shaaff,\ for the Appellee.
   The Court

decreed, that so much of the decree of the court of chancery as dismissed the bill of complaint of the complainant be affirmed; and that that part of the decree which directs that the dismissal of the bill should be without costs, be reversed; and decreed that the appellant pay io the appellee all the costs incurred by the appellee in the court of chancery, and in this court.

DECREE REVERSED, ^C.  