case LUXTON v Stephens Lord chancellor Talbot Eq can ab pl a heir at law be  make a defendant and insist on his title he shall have his cost though it go  against he but if a heir at law be plaintiff and miscarry in his suit he shall  not have cost but on his suit appear to be groundless shall pay cost the  plaintiff be the old son and heir of I and claim a issue in tail under a  settlement the defendant entitle himself under the tenant in tail and show  that the tenant in tail have suffer a recovery the plaintiff bring a bill for  a discovery of the write and of the deed of settlement and the defendant  insist that the entail be cut off by a recovery peer William the cause be hear  it be decree that the write shall be bring before a master and the bill retain  for a twelvemonth and in the mean time the peer William er p plaintiff to try  his title in a ejectment accord the plaintiff bring a ejectment when a verdict  be find for the defendant and the matter come on upon the equity reserve touch  cost on the behalf of the plaintiff it be object that he be a heir at law and  appear now to be a disinherit heir that he have a probable cause of suit and  it be enough for he to lose his estate without be punish with cost into the  bargain which will be pain collision to put to Lord chancellor when a heir be  make a defendant to a bill bring to prove a will there he shall have his cost  note Even though he crossexamines the plaintiff witness and refuse to release  his right otherwise if he examine witness of his own see vol bidulph v bidulph  but in the present case he be plaintiff and come here for the aid of the court  and to be furnish with the deed of settlement which aid he have have and at  length it appear that this his application to the court be groundless for that  his title be bar by the common recover of his ancestor which prima fancy be to  be presume regular and there be no fault in the defendant nor any reason he  shall lose his cost on the contrary the plaintiff in contest the common  recovery suffer by his ancestor appear to have be in the wrong and ought to  pay the cost of the suit seal v Brownton bro c c Rashley v master Ves Jun  while v Wilson Ves Vaughan v Fitzgerald Sch Lef Blinkehorne v Feast dick and  see shall v Barrington ante vol