case sir John napier versus lady Effingham see S c in h l bro p c also Seton  on judgement that Edward p Lord chancellor king master of the roll upon a  decree against a infant unless cause within six month after he come to age the  infant may answer make a defence and examine witness anew sir John Napier  nephew and heir of sir Theophilus Napier the first husband of the defendant  lady Effingham who after the death of sir Theophilus marry and survive Lord  Effingham bring his bill against the lady Effingham inter all to be relieve  against a conveyance gain undue by lady Effingham from her first husband sir  Theophilus Napier whereby he settle diverse land lie in the middle of his  estate and likewise the manor of Shitlington a manor that have be long in the  family of which there be about tenant and this manor name in the middle of the  parcel amount in the whole to above pound per annum whereas the defendant by  her answer admit that the land agree by sir Theophilus to be settle be not  above pound per annum and the defendant lady Effingham prefer her cross bill  inter all to establish this settlement peer William Lord chancellor Parker  among other thing refer this matter to be state by the master and afterward  the plaintiff sir John Napier a infant exhibit his petition to his lordship  for leave to bring a new bill show that his cause have be mismanage by his  former solicitor and make out the same by affidavit upon which the court give  leave to bring such new bill but the defendant lady Effingham appeal from this  order to the house of lord she be let into the possession of the premise but  leave be give the plaintiff to show cause within six month after he shall come  of age bro p c bro p c and ed see Gregory v Molesworth atk and now sir John  Napier petition the court that he may have leave to amend peer William er p  his original bill or be allow to bring a new or supplemental bill as he shall  be advice and also to amend his answer to the crossbill Lord chancellor call  to his assistance the master of the roll and after hear counsel on both side  this day the opinion of the court be deliver as to what be pray concern amend  the original bill there do not appear to be any precedent in this court of a  amendment to a bill in a part wherein it have be dismiss upon the merit the  plaintiff sir John Napier now he be of age ought to be well advice how he go  on in this cause as it be insist at the bar that there be a particular give in  by sir Theophilus for instruct counsel to draw the settlement in question  which comprise this manor of Shitlington peer William but as to the present  question concern the manner in which the plaintiff ought to show cause and  bring this matter before the court it be not to be imagine that sir John be  tie up to the former proceed only for that will be the most imperfect relief  which can be give therefore this cause be to be consider as if there have be a  common decree against a infant relate to his inheritance with a nisi causan  within six month after he shall come of age in which case it will be plain the  defendant may amend his answer all infant defendant by their answer put in a  early claim to the care and protection of the court in relation to their right  and ought to have it forasmuch as they be suppose unable to take care of  themselves which arise from the general superintendency this court have over  infant all decree against they give six month after they come of age to show  cause and therefore sir John Napier in the present case ought to have leave to  put in a new answer and the master of the roll say he look upon this as a  matter of course and of right so anon mose believe that he have grant the same  upon a petition ex part vide fountain v Cain ante vol Bennet v lee atk note  the consequence of a infant put in a new answer be that he may examine witness  anew to prove his defence which may be different from what it be before see  savage v carol ba be this order be affirm on appeal to the house of lord bro p  c and Edward bro p c