ambler case leman against alie Jan bill by disinherit heir at law to have  inspection of deed dismiss without cost which be order at the hear lib Reg lib  Reg r foe b S c Cox ms d d bill by sir Tanfield leman who be disinherit to  have inspection of deed and write and there appear to be no title in the  plaintiff the cause be set down for further direction by the defendant and it  be pray that the bill may be dismiss with cost Lord Hardwicke c there be two  reason against give cost in this case saint it appear plaintiff be entitle  under a entail which be cut off and have a right to see how he be bar and  although fine and recovery be of record yet he may not from inspection of they  know what estate be affect by they or how far if heir at law bring a bill in  this court for a discovery I will not have it understand he shall pay cost  there be no pretence for it if a motion shall be make in such case for cost he  will move to amend and pray inspection of deed and the court will permit he to  do it and not give cost against he bill be seldom or ever bring by a heir at  law for a mere discovery but general for production of deed and then relief be  pray dly here be a honour leave destitute of a estate it be a gratitude and  duty due to the crown to leave a estate to go with the title it be a dishonour  to the crown and the public not to do so this reason govern in wms shall v  Barrington proposal be make by the counsel for the defendant that the bill  shall be ambler er p dismiss without cost but if plaintiff shall molest they  they shall be at liberty to apply for cost see harnett v yield Sch Lef it be  agree to by the other side and think by Lord chancellor to be very reasonable  and order accord that a heir at law contend for the inheritance upon probable  ground shall not pay cost though he do not succeed in establish his right see  earl of Suffolk v Howard p W web v Claverden atk Forbes v tailor Ves jun  Bernee v byre atk shall v Barrington p W Luxton v Stephens p W Humphrey v  Morse atk Biddulph v Biddulph p W but where his suit be mere vexatious he will  be make to pay cost Luxton v Stephens ub sup web v Claverden atk seal v  Brownton bro C C see white v Wilson Ves