case Barbon versus Searle of the tenth pound Lord chancellor after a decree of  dismission affirm on a appeal to the lord bill be bring for discovery of a  deed say to be burn pen the appeal which make out plaintiff title that after  such discovery plaintiff may apply to the lord for relief defendant upon a  demurrer order to answer but plaintiff to proceed no further without leave of  the court the plaintiff by his bill which be partly original and partly a bill  of review set forth the order make by the peer in parliament whereby clerk the  plaintiff in the original cause who interest the now plaintiff have be relieve  as to a moiety of the personal estate and dismiss as to the real and that such  order have not be make but that the defendant suppress the evidence and have  pen the appeal as the plaintiff have since discover burn the deed that make  out the plaintiff title and therefore pray the defendant may answer and  discover the matter aforesaid the plaintiff allege in his bill that he do not  thereby design to impeach the order of the house of lord but that by this  discovery he may be capacitate to apply Vernon chancery case to the lord in  parliament when there shall be a session for such relief as the nature of the  whole case when discover shall require to this bill the defendant demurrer he  also plead the dismission of the former bill at the suit of sir Robert clerk  under who title the present plaintiff claim and the affirmation of that  dismission by the house of peer upon the dismission of the petition of appeal  from that dismission and the demurrer be for that there be no error in law in  the say dismission in this court r l and in argue the demurrer sergeant  Maynard for the defendant insist that after a judgement give upon a appeal in  the house of lord this court can not intermeddle further than to settle so  much of the cause as the lord have transmit to this court which concern only  the Vernon chancery case er p personal estate and that matter this court have  already pursuant to the direction of the house of lord determine and that no  bill of review will lie in this case that bill of review be not favour and be  tie up to strict rule and for that purpose cite the case of dunny and Filmore  ante case Ch Rep where upon a bill of review the court have decree the whole  estate to the plaintiff and though it appear even upon the face of the decree  that the plaintiff have a title but to one moiety only yet it be there resolve  that no bill of review will lie upon a bill of review send vide Chan pract  Mitfords Tr p d Edit and the defendant be leave without remedy and he likewise  cite Morgan case where upon a bill of review the plaintiff can not produce the  deed and so fail at the hear of make out his equity and though the deed come  afterward to his hand which plain make out his title yet it be adjudge to be a  right without a remedy and the defendant to be without relief and he likewise  observe that the plaintiff title of his own show be only as assignee of clerk  and a assignee can in no case have a bill of review much less a assignee that  come in as the plaintiff do pendent light so a purchaser or assignee who come  not in privity be not entitle to bring a to know facias to revive a decree  vide don v Allen post and say there that such purchaser or assignee shall  bring a original bill to have a parallel decree make say qure and particular  after decree enrol vide don v Allen ante for the plaintiff it be answer that  the stress of the sergeant argument be level as suppose this to be a bill of  review whereas it be as well a original bill as a bill of review and that a  difference have be common take and allow in this court though it be not  necessary Vernon chancery case to maintain the bill in question between a  decree and a dismission to wit where there be a decree that be not to be alter  but by bill of review but where there be only a dismission a original bill may  be bring upon a new equity Qure vide Prettyman v Prettyman ante p and case  there refer to but a order dismiss a bill for want of prosecution be not a bar  to another bill Brandlyn v Ord atk I and say they do not pretend to say that  this court can reverse or alter the order of the house of lord but as there be  little doubt to be make but that the parliament if it have be sit upon a  petition will have direct this matter to have be examine in this court in  regard that it be not the course there to take answer upon oath so in the  interval of parliament when we can obtain such direction this court may well  proceed to have a discovery of this matter or else by death or otherwise the  plaintiff peradventure may lose the benefit of it so that this bill be not to  change or alter the lord order but in effect auxiliary to the proceed before  they the court hereupon order the defendant to answer the bill and when he  have so do the plaintiff be not to proceed any further without the special  leave of the court the decree be as follow whereupon c his lordship declare  that inasmuch as the lord be not now sit whereby to have a direction touch the  say matter in respect of the suppression of the say deed and if they be yet in  regard answer put in to petition there be not use to be so put in on oath and  inasmuch as the house of peer have refer it back to this court to rehear the  say cause as to one of the say party which be do and the say sir Robert clerk  be relieve as to that part he conceive there ought to be a discover and that  the defendant ought to answer the say bill so as to put the plaintiff in a  condition of relief as to the other part from the lord upon any application to  they when they shall sit in case their lordship shall think fit and do  therefore order that the say defendant do answer the say plaintiff bill but  that no further proceed be thereupon have without the further order of the  court Reg lib a fol Vernon chancery case er p