case bishop OF durham appellant sir henry Liddell respondent saint January  Mews dig xi by the rule of the court of chancery relate to bill of review it  be direct that if the duty decree be the payment of money the money must be  pay before any bill of review be admit though in that case if the party bring  the bill prevail the money so pay shall be refund to he viner vol p can can Eq  can ab can the respondent be seize of the manor of hectom and Ravensworth  alias Lamesley cum member in the county palatine of Durham within which manor  be two great waste or more one call Blackburne fall situate on the west and  Chowdene fall situate on the east of the manor in ranulfus then bishop of  Durham grant this manor to his nephew Richard and his heir and king Henry I by  his letter patent confirm the grant the respondent and his ancestor and the  ancient owner of this manor have enjoy the same and the say waste parcel  thereof above year accord to the ancient grant and boundary brown the waste  call Blackburne fall adjoin upon the bishop of durham manor of Chester Le  street and there be a copyhold call Aydon close adjoin upon the respondent  boundary which be hold of the bishop manor at a yearly brown er p rend of  eight shilling this copyhold the respondent father purchase and be admit to  about forty year ago and his tenant thereof at two different time enclose  seven acre from off Blackburne fall and lie they into the copyhold the  respondent after his father death apply to be admit to this copyhold estate by  the ancient description thereof in the former copy but the bishop steward  insist upon vary the description so as to include the seven acre take from off  Blackburne fall which the respondent refuse to agree to three proclamation be  make for his admittance and on his make default the bishop insist upon a  forfeiture and bring a ejectment in his own court of plea at Durham on the  trial of this ejectment the respondent put in a challenge to the array of the  jury because they be return by a sheriff nominate by the bishop durante bene  plea and under a certain yearly salary but after a long debate of counsel the  challenge be overrule and the jury swear when the trial be put off to the next  assize in order that the jury may view the premise in question in the interim  the respondent prefer his bill in chancery against the bishop set forth his  title to and the boundary of the premise and that the freeholder be either  immediate or mediate tenant to the bishop under his distress and therefore  pray that to prevent multiplicity of suit the boundary of the respondent say  manor may be settle by a issue at law to be try in a indifferent county that  the testimony of the respondent ancient witness may be perpetuate that he may  be admit to the say copyhold estate on payment of the customary fine and fee  and that the bishop may be enjoin from proceed at law upon the hear of this  cause on the that of April a issue be direct to be try at the then next assize  for the county of York to ascertain the boundary of the respondent manor and  the matter relative to the respondent admittance to the copyhold premise be  reserve till after this trial the issue be accord try by a special jury and a  verdict find for the respondent as to all his boundary and upon hear the cause  on the equity reserve the court declare that the boundary of the respondent  manor be sufficient ascertain and establish by the verdict a injunction be  award to quiet he in the possession thereof and the bishop be decree to pay  the respondent his cost both at law and in equity relative to the boundary  only as to the copyhold estate it be order that the respondent shall be admit  thereto on payment of his fine and other customary charge the master be to  settle brown the admittance by as near a description as he can from the last  and former admittances and certify the same and the consideration of cost as  to the copyhold be reserve till after the master shall have make his report  upon the respondent proceed to tax his cost before the master the bishop  insist on his privilege as a Peer against which the respondent petition the  house and the same be refer to the committee of privilege they report that the  bishop have waive his privilege and ought not to resume it which report be  afterward agree to by the house jour vol p after the cost be tax the bishop  file a bill of review to reverse the above decree which be dismissed On this  dismission the court declare that by the rule of the court relate to bill of  review it be direct that if the duty decree be for the payment of money then  the money must be pay before any bill of review be to be admit though in that  case if the party bring the bill previals the money so pay shall be refund to  he and that this be a strong case the money to be pay shall be refund to he  and that this be a strong case the money to be pay be only for cost which in  all event ought to be pay before any bill of review be bring on the that of  November he bring the present appeal insist that upon hear the cause t powys n  Lechmere the bill ought to have be dismiss as to the waste call Blackburne  fall not only because it be a title pure triable at law and a ejectment be  depend for that purpose but also because the appellant right to the coal i  within the waste be full prove and even admit by the respondent upon the trial  that the bill ought also to have be dismiss as to such other of the appellant  right within the boundary as be claim and enjoy by he and no way disprove by  the respondent for the save whereof there be no declaration in the decree  although the whole profit of the soil brown er p be insist upon and claim by  the respondent bill that no evidence appear to the court to excuse the  respondent wilful and obstinate forfeiture of the copyhold in question the  bill so far as the same relate to such forfeiture ought to have be dismiss  with cost or at least if the respondent have entitle himself to any relief  touch the forfeiture the same ought to have be grant on payment of cost that  the boundary as claim by the respondent ought not to have be affirm or declare  to be sufficient ascertain by the decree nor ought he to have be quiet in the  possession thereof accord to the verdict by the injunction of the court  without any save to the appellant and his successor in regard it appear upon  the face of the decree as well as by the respondent bill that the copyhold in  question which in fact lie within the pretend boundary be hold of the  appellant manor of Chester and be parcel of the same and for that the coal i  and copyhold and other the right enjoy by the appellant within the boundary  likewise appear to have be always enjoy as belong to the appellant manor so  that the respondent claim of the boundary seem inconsistent with the right  admit to be enjoy by the brown appellant within the same and may in time as  the decree be draw up be make use of to take away those right that the issue  be only direct to ascertain the boundary of the respondent manor of Lamesley  cum member be not sufficient to determine the right to the soil of Blackburne  fall unless the ascertain such boundary do also ascertain the respondent right  to all the waste and soil within the same in which case the appellant will  lose his right even to the copyhold land and all other his right which be  admit to he but the right of the soil of Blackburne fall ought to have be try  in a ejectment and the appellant ought not after issue join and a view direct  to have be stop by injunction and order into another county at a vast expense  to try only the boundary of the respondent manor which will be a precedent of  very great consequence and prejudice to the see of Durham and to the privilege  and franchise of the county palatine that there be no direction give for  ascertain the boundary of the appellant manor though pray even by the  respondent bill and last that a single trial ought not especial after new  matter discover to be conclusive to the appellant right much less a trial upon  such a issue as have be direct on the other side it be argue t Lutwyche S  Cowper that the matter on which the bishop will have find his bill of review  be a pretend discovery of several record and evidence since the trial and the  decree but not since the final decree and in fact there be affidavit make that  he have they before that no copy of such record and evidence have ever be  produce either to the court of chancery or the respondent agent but accord to  the account give of they they do not appear to be material that even if they  have be material yet if the same be find and discover before the decree make  on the equity reserve the bishop have a proper opportunity before or at the  time of that hear to have move for a new trial but on the contrary he do not  even desire it but only insist that he ought not to pay cost and offer to  submit to and acquiesce in the verdict if the cost of suit be waive that the  bishop exhibit his cross bill against the respondent to fix and settle the  boundary of his manor of Chester Le street and also his manor of Gateshead in  the county of Durham adjoin upon the respondent manor that the cause be now at  issue and the bishop may insist upon his new pretend record and evidence  therein if he think fit but though this cross cause be at issue before the  first hear in the original cause yet the bishop be so well satisfy with the  respondent right that he have never make one step in his cross cause since  that hear that the bishop seem to lie great stress upon the coal i in  Blackburne fall be hold by lease from he but in the ancient purchase deed of  the respondent manor make to his great grandfather quint James primi these  coal i be except and the respondent claim no title thereto nay in his answer  to the say cross bill brown he disclaim any other right thereto than by lease  from the bishop that as to all the other objection to the verdict there be  this answer to be give that on the hear upon the equity reserve the bishop do  not so much as ask for a new trial nor endeavour to get any certificate from  the judge or take any other proper step towards obtain it that as to the  copyhold it be a very small tenement let by the respondent at pound ayear and  will brown er p never have be contest by the bishop but only to draw in  question the respondent title to Blackburne fall and to subject he to the  whole cost though the bishop have prevail for the small copyhold only and last  that the bishop never complain of his be aggrieve by this decree until after  the house of peer have adjudge he have no privilege and till after the cost be  tax and process have issue for the same accord after hear counsel on this  appeal it be order and adjudge that the same shall be dismiss and that the say  decree and the several order and proceed therein complain of shall be affirm  jour vol p