case parker against gerard baronet see Giffard v William l r Eq decree for a  partition be matter of right at the roll that July lib Reg b foe a on bill for  a partition sir Thomas clerk master of the roll say that such a bill be matter  of right and there be no instance of not succeed in it but where there be not  proof of title in plaintiff and in the case of Cartwright v Lord bath  Cartwright v Pultney atk the court give leave and time for the plaintiff to  make out his title in the case of Mr banns Warner v banns post upon a bill for  a partition of the cold bath c the strong argument of inconveniency imaginable  be use but do not prevail ambler er p ambler in Nevis v Levene the plaintiff  be entitle to or acre and the defendant to or only and though the defendant  will have rather give up his part than be at the expense of a partition yet it  be decree and to be at the equal expense of both party see Cartwright v  Pultney atk turner v Morgan Ves Parker v Fairfax Ves but though if the  plaintiff title be clear he may demand a commission as a matter of right if  his tile be suspicious the court may exercise its discretion and leave he to  his remedy at law bare v Nash v b see in Scott v faucet dick see Warner v  banns post and note there the bill state that the plaintiff together with the  defendant be owner in feesimple of all the undivided pasture call Thisleton  pasture the whole of which consist of acre of full make beast grass which  belong to and be enjoy by the plaintiff and defendant in the proportion follow  that be to say to plaintiff Parker beast grass to plaintiff Foxroft to  defendant sir t Gerrard to defendant c to defendant t to defendant S to  defendant m make together and that plaintiff and defendant be the proprietor  of the remain beast grass in the same proportion the defendant by their answer  state that the land extend a mile and a half and that some part be rocky and  craggy and poor land that the low land be of a much better description and  that it will be very difficult if not impracticable to make a equal division  and that in some part thereof there be no water and that some of the allotment  can have none which will render they of little value and that it will be most  to the advantage of the property that it shall remain undivided in manner it  have immemorially be and submit that the partition shall not be make at the  request of two person only the decree direct a partition among the plaintiff  and defendant in the several proportion they be then entitle and that a  commission shall issue accord lib Reg Mr beam in his treatise on cost p note  suggest that this case be in fact the same as the case of Norris v Le neve  report atk and which be not a case of partition but respect boundary the  editor have be unable to meet with any case under the name of Nevis v Levene  the general rule with respect to cost in such case be now understand to be as  lie down in agar v Fairfax Ves that no cost shall be give until the commission  that the cost of issue execute and confirm the commission shall be bear by the  party in proportion to the value of their respective interest and that there  shall be no cost of the subsequent proceed see Calmady v Calmady Ves jun bare  v Nash I v b beam on cost Whaley v Dawson Sch Lef