1788-01-16 (static/transcriptions/1788/01/126.jpg)

effect a rehearing.
If Phanoos’s evidence stood incontradicted, the bill must have been dismissed.
Exclusive of the Decrees Mr. Holford paid 3 small Sums to Mr. J: Atty at Law for defending those suits in Equity after the action was brot at Law.
As to costs I conceive that the ca: Twistleton v. Thelwall reported in Hardres 165 is directly in point.
In 2 Atkins 108 – Exor not bod to pay costs when brot before the Court for an Accot of Assets.
There may be in appeal from