ambler case Bradish against gee may can appeal from a decree make by consent  money direct to be lie out in land the person entitle to it absolute may elect  to take it in money or land and slight act do will be evidence of his  intention but parole declaration be not sufficient S c hill ms Cox ms d d e e  ken full lib Reg a fol a Eq Cas Abr sir George downing case Lord Hardwicke  chancellor where a decree be make by consent of counsel there lie not a appeal  or rehear though the party do not real give his consent but his remedy be  against his counsel c but if such decree be by fraud and covin the party may  be relieve against it not by rehear or appeal but by original bill Richmond v  Tallicur dick p W Eq can Abr Floyd v Mansell pale yellow Eq Rep so at law  defendant may plead judgement be by fraud and covin against his testator in  the above case the decree itself be plead but the fraud itself be not  sufficient deny but if fraud be deny in the answer the decree which be impeach  may be plead to such a bill where money be direct to be turn into land or v  ice line the person entitle to it may elect in which way he will take it as  money or land and very slight evidence of his intention by act do will be  sufficient but his lordship say he can not admit that parole declaration will  as be intimate by Lord Macclesfield in Edward v earl of Warwick p W Eq can ab  and when he have once signify that intention he be bind by it in the present  case one tenant in common have consent to a decree for sale of the whole  estate and his lordship say he be bind by it for the other party be interest  in that consent because their share of the estate will not sell so well  separate as if the whole be sell together and his lordship say even if he have  afterwords petition that the land shall not be sell yet the decree will not be  vary and the money arise by the sale will go to his personal representative Ve  Lingen v sawray wms change the security hold sufficient note order that the  bill be dismiss without cost and in case the plaintiff shall put the defendant  to any further expense or trouble t re conveyance then the defendant be to be  at liberty to apply for his cost see as to the order with respect to cost  leman v alie ante see Northcote v Northcote Colles p c vin Abr Allanson v  Doulben Colles p c other v Sansam bro p c Blundell v macartney ride p c  Harrison v Ramsey Ves wood v Griffith mere Bernal v Donegal dow wall v Bushby  bro Downing v cage Eq can Abr but see Butterfield v Butterfield Ves supl web v  web Swanst Pultney v Darlington bro bro p c Guidot v Guidot atk crabtree v  bramble ib Chichester v Bickerstaff vern bow v earl of Shrewsbury bro p c  hewet v wright bro c c Lingen v Sowray p wms earldom v sander post cruse v  Bailey p wms Seeley v Jago p W Benson v Benson ib van v Barnett Ves ambler er  p