
    Margate Company, complainant, v. Charles B. Penrose et al., defendants.
    [Argued and decided June 27th, 1913.]
    On appeal from an order of the conut of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Learning.
    
      Mr. H. Starr Giddings, for the complainant.
    
      Messrs. Bourgeois é Coulomb, for Armend L. Bartlett, appellant.
   Per Curiam.

This is a bill for partition of lands. The title of the complainant to an undivided three-eighths is not disputed. The title of the appellant is questioned by some of her co-defendants. She applied for an order staying proceedings until the title, could be determined at law. The vice-chancellor refused the stay and she appealed. We think it unnecessary to consider the effect of the act of 1912. P. L. 10 IS p. 82k. The complainant has a right to proceed with her suit for partition and cannot be deprived of that right by a controversy between the defendants. Phelps v. Green, 3 John. Ch. 302: Egner v. Meis, 36 Atl. Rep. 943.

The order is affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chiue-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trencitard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Bogert, Vreden-BURGI-r, CONGDON, WHITE, HEPPENIIEIMER-12.

For reversal—None.  