c viscountess Cranborne v Delahay esquire S c dick Nels sur bill of review  demurrer may car Lord chancellor I Windham bill be to reverse a decree in may  where the duchess of Hamilton the defendant late wife be plaintiff against the  Lord Cranborne the now plaintiff late husband freeman and other defendant  error assign be that the duchess be in truth a feme covert at the time of the  decree have as it appear by the now defendant answer in this court in another  cause so there be no cause in court the cause be abate by her marriage wherein  she be the plaintiff that the deed of the earl of Darlington underwhich she  claim be a deed of feoff of the friary of Guildford be void for the estate  thereof be in trustee freeman er p at that time and no livery of seize be ever  make on that deed and therefore ought not to be support in equity to the  disherison of the plaintiff viscountess Cranborne coheir at law with the say  duchess to the say earl of Darlington to this the defendant demurrer and for  cause show that for ought appear the decree be well ground and that the first  error be not matter appear in the body of the say decree but dehors see post c  p and yet be allege as error and not as new matter and that the now plaintiff  can not take advantage thereof neither can any ever take advantage of it but  the defendant who have not except to it and it be but matter of abatement and  not in point of right and after a decree in point of right ought not to be  admit as to the first resolve that a decree make in point of right ought not  to be review on the point of a dilatory plea which may have be plead in  abatement to the second because the earl of Darlington be seize of a trust  that the deed though in the nature of a feoff shall pass the trust without  livery and seize for the trust may have be declare by parole it will be  recollect that the stat of fraud be not pass till fourteen year after this  case be decide Reg lib a fol the defendant plead the former decree and also  demurrer for that by the rule of the court no bill of review ought to be admit  but in case of error in law appear in the body of the decree or upon some new  matter of fact arise after the decree be such whereof no advantage can be make  at the time of the decree and the error that the duchess be marry be only  matter in abatement and not to the right and appear not in the body of the  decree but be matter of fact out of the decree and which the now plaintiff  have assign for error and not for new matter and be it so yet she may have  have advantage thereof before the hear and ought not now to be admit to it nor  be the now plaintiff a proper person to take advantage of that exception for  that the defendant do and do consent unto and allow of the say proceed nor can  any advantage have be take of the matter allege but by abatement and the other  error assign be no error but the cause be adjudge upon the say deed and proof  of the earl of darlington intention the court and the assistant judge be clear  of opinion that the say plea and demurrer be good allow the same and dismiss  the plaintiff bill a strong in this case then it be much insist by the  plaintiff counsel that the defendant shall be put to answer but resolve that  they shall not answer because by possibility no other matter can come before  the court than what be in the demurrer and so the demurrer allow