case Metcalfe versus Beckwith at the roll Eq can ab pl on a bill to settle the  boundary of a manor it be decree that each party shall give to the other a  note of their boundary and that it shall be try in a feign issue and the issue  be find for the defendant on the first second and three trial the defendant be  not only allow the cost of all the trial at law but also the cost in equity in  regard the defendant have no bill and the plaintiff may have try it at law  without come into equity on a bill of partition no cost on either side because  it be for the benefit of both party on a bill to settle the boundary of the  manor of dale of which the plaintiff be lord and of the manor of sale which  belong to the defendant the plaintiff and defendant insist upon different  boundary it be order that the party shall give a note to each other of their  boundary and that the matter shall be try in a feign issue whereupon a trial  be have in which the verdict be for the defendant and afterward a new trial  grant and after that a three trial upon a certificate of the judge that the  last be against evidence and upon the three trial also the like verdict be  find for the defendant so that the boundary appear to be as they be give in by  the defendant and contrary to what have be allege by the plaintiff bill peer  William and now upon the equity reserve it come on before the master of the  roll it be urge for the plaintiff that as to the cost of the three trial the  plaintiff must submit to pay they but with regard to the suit in this court  the bill seem to be in the nature of a bill of partition where neither side  pay cost it be for the benefit of both party to have their share in severalty  and that in the present case there be by this trial a plain advantage to the  defendant by the bind of his manor be set out by this verdict in the same way  as they probable will have be in a bill of partition for which reason the  plaintiff ought to pay no cost and the rather in this case in regard the  plaintiff have a probable cause of suit and it must be presume that at the  hear there be evidence on both side and therefore to satisfy the peer William  er p conscience of the court it have be send to a trial under which  circumstance it will be hard to make the plaintiff pay the charge of satisfy  the conscience of the court when the thing be in its nature doubtful but for  the defendant it be say that the plaintiff bill in this case ought to be  dismiss and the defendant have no bill the dismission ought to be with cost  otherwise a encouragement may be give for great vexation without any prospect  of the least recompense master of the roll the objection that this bill be in  nature of a bill of partition seem to be of some weight but as the defendant  have no bill here and the plaintiff may have try this matter at law and more  especial since no part of the issue be find for the plaintiff who be in the  wrong in toto peer William why shall he not be within the common rule and pay  cost throughout dismiss the bill with cost Reg lib b fol but in saint Luke v  saint Leonard bro c c Lord Thurlow think that a bill to settle boundary of a  parish will not lie it be mere a question at law see Atkins v Hatton Anst  Woolaston v wright Anst wake v Conyers Eden Cox speer v Crawter mere miller v  Warmington James W but see miller v Warmington James W the cost of a suit for  partition be former bear equal by the party Parker v Gerard Amb hide v Hindli  Cox but be now divide between they in proportion to their interest Calmady v  Calmady Ves jun agar v Fairfax Ves bare v Nash v b