
    COURT OF APPEALS,
    JUNE TERM, 1804.
    S. Norwood vs. E. Norwood.
    ‘Where a complainant in chancery had obtained a decree establishing; his right to the profits of a fervor—on another bill tor subsequent profits, he referred to sq ch decree, without exhibiting-a record thereof. and obtained a decree, &<• which on Appeal was le-velled, although the defendant’- answer admitted this former decree,
    Arpear from a decree of the court of chancery, passed in favour of the complainant in that court. The bill stated, amongst other things, “that a bill in chancery was heretofore filed in this court by your orator against the said Samuel Norwood, and by decree of the court your orator’s right to a moiety of the ferry landing and profits, was established and confnmed; that the defendant Samuel Norwood, wai decreed to account for certain profits, and an account of profits was stated up. to the 12rh of April 1799, as by said proceedings on record m the high courl of chancery will appear; from which decree the said Samuel hath psosei uted an appeal to the high court of ap« peals, where the same is now depending.’’ The proceedings referred were not exhibited and made a part of the proceedings in the case.
    The answer of the defendant “admits that the complainant hied his bilí in this court against him, and that, he obtained a decree for a moiety of the profits made at the ferry aforesaid; the amount of the decree, the time from whence the profits commenced, and when they were closed by the decree, will appear by the decree, itself, to which this respondent prays leave to refer, and that be has appealed from the decree to the court of appeals:’? From the decree which the chancellor passed in'this case in favour of'’the com? plainant, the defendant appealed to this'court.
    
      Harper and Johnson, for the Appellant.
    
      Key and Ridgely, for the Appellee.
   The Court or Arpeáis

[Jones,

Potts and Dennis, Judges,]

reversed the decree of the court of chancery, being “of opinion that there is not sufficient evidence contained in the record to support the chancellor’s decree against the appellant, the original decree referred to in the bill of complaint not bdingexhibited-and making no part of the evidence in the court below.”

Also decreed, “that the chancellor dismiss the said b'dl without prejudice to the equity of the complainant.» if any, and without costs.”  