
    James Murphy v. John Stults—on Original Bill. John Stults v. James Murphy, Aaron Longstreet, and John Rule—on Cross-Bill.
    
    Upon hearing, on bill, cross-bill, answers and depositions, where both causes came on to be heard together; and each party has material allegations to sustain under their respective bills; the complainant in the original bill is entitled to the opening and reply.
    The original bill was filed by Murphy against Stults, to stay waste on a tract of land, which the complainant alleged he had recently purchased of Aaron Longstreet, through his agent, John Rule, of which the defendant had taken possession, &c. The answer alleged that the defendant had entered into a prior contract with Longstreet for the purchase of the same premises, of which tJ>o complainant had notice; under which contract the defendant had taken possession, (fee.
    April, 1832.
    The cross-bill was filed by Stults against Murphy, Longstreet, and Rule, praying for a specific performance of the contract of sale by Longstreet to Stults, and for an injunction to restrain Murphy from committing waste, (fee.
    Answers had been put in, witnesses examined, and both causes set down for hearing; upon which, a question arose as to the order of proceeding.
    
      W. Halsted, for complainant on original bill;
    
      R. R. Hamilton, for complainant on cross-bill.
   The Chancellor.

A bill and cross-bill has been filed, to* which answers have been put in, and the causes put at issue. Witnesses have been examined, and both causes now come on to be heard together. Each party has material allegations to sustain under their respective bills. In such case, the complainant in the original bill is entitled to the opening and reply.  