case turner versus turner Lord chancellor king Sel can in Charles stram Eq can  ab pl a infant by prochein any bring a bill and never stir in it after he come  of age and the bill be dismiss the infant and prochein any be both liable to  pay cost a infant who by the custom of gavelkind be one of three coheir of a  real estate by his prochein any bring his bill to establish a will whereby  that estate be pretend to be devise to he only the court direct a issue which  be find afterward against the plaintiff the prochein any die before the cost  tax and the infant come of age but never afterward proceed one step and the  cause be now set down pure upon the cost reserve it be object by Mr Talbot  that where a infant sue by prochein any it be the prochein any only who be to  pay the cost for any one may bring a bill in the infant name and if it be a  insolvent any the defendant may apply to the court in order to have a solvent  prochein any name which if the defendant do not do it be his own fault and it  will be a hardship upon the infant who be not suppose to be capable of judge  of the right propriety or justice of a suit to be subject to the cost of it or  to peer William er p be put to his remedy over against his prochein any that  it be plain in the present case the infant have no remedy over against his  prochein any he be dead peer William Lord chancellor at law the infant be  liable to pay the cost if the judgement be against he but see Tidds pract as  if a infant bring a action of batter and have a verdict against he he must pay  the cost and if the commonlaw be so why shall it not be so in equity otherwise  a infant will be leave at liberty to plague mankind as he think fit and the  court be inform by the register and clerk in court that the course be to  dismiss the infant bill general with cost without mention who shall pay they  his lordship say he will dismiss this bill with cost and as he apprehend upon  a general dismission the defendant have his election whether he will sue the  infant or prochein any for such cost but on a rehear the bill be dismiss  without cost stram Qure for in squirrel v squirrel in line inn hall ten a bill  have be file by a feme covert by her next friend against her husband it be  move on the part of the defendant that all proceed in the cause may be stay  until the prochein any shall give security for cost or another prochein any be  name which application be support by a affidavit of the bad circumstance of  the prochein any but Lord Thurlow refuse to make any order and say he do not  conceive that the court can inquire into the circumstance of a prochein any  more than those of any common plaintiff in which case though the plaintiff  shall be insolvent a defendant can help himself that in the case of a infant  or feme covert they be oblige to sue by a next friend in order that there may  be some person sueable for the cost which the infant and feme covert  themselves be not but that the court content itself with make somebody  amesnable in this respect without go into a inquiry concern his ability n b  there be in this case a additional circumstance upon which his lordship in  some degree rely videlicet that this application be make after the defendant  have answer which may be consider as a waiver of any application of this  nature though it be allege on his part that he have not discover the  circumstance of the prochein any until after answer S c dick and Ves jun anon  so in davenport v davenport S S the court refuse to inquire into the  circumstance of a propose prochein any of a infant plaintiff but in Pennington  v Alvin ib the vicechancellor distinguish the case of a feme covert from that  of a infant