Sparrow, Ex parte, Re Fowke, 2 D. M. & G. 907 . Sparrow v. Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Rail. Co., 2 D. M. & Staner, Ex parte, 2 D. M. & G. 263; 21 L. J. Bk. 256; 16 Jur. 1124 Stapylton v. Clough, 2 El. & Bl. 933; 23 L. J. Q. B. 5; 2 C. L. R. 266 ; 18 Jur. 60; 22 L. T. O. S. 100 Stephenson v. Raine, 2 El. & Bl. 744; 23 L. J. Q. B. 62; 18 Jur. 176 . Stump v. Gaby, 2 D. M. & G. 623; 22 L. J. Ch. 352; 17 Jur. 5; 1 W. R. Swindell, Ex parte, 2 D. M. & G. 91 TAIT v. Carlisle Local Board of Health, 2 El. & Bl. 492; 18 Jur. 374 Tetley v. Easton, 2 El. & Bl. 956; 23 L. J. Q. B. 77; 18 Jur. 350; 22 Thomas v. Stephenson, 2 El. & Bl. 108 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 258; 17 Jur. 597 Thomson v. Harding (or Harvey), 2 El. & Bl. 630; 22 L. J. Q. B. 448; 18 775 Turnbull v. Ware, 2 D. M. & G. 281 Turner, Ex parte, Re Crosthwaite, 2 D. M. & G. 927 v. Evans, 2 D. M. & G. 740; 22 L. J. Q. B. 412; 17 Jur. 1073; 1 v. Turner, 2 D. M. & G. 28; 21 L. J. Ch. 422 WALKER v. York & North Midland Rail. Co., 2 El. & Bl. 750; 23 L. J. Warrington v. Early, 2 El. & Bl. 763; 23 L. J. Ex. 47; 18 Jur. 42 Westoby v. Day, 2 El. & Bl. 605; 22 L. J. Q. B. 418; 18 Jur. 10; 21 Williams, Re, 2 El. & Bl. 84; 22 L. J. M. C. 125; 17 Jur. 763 v. Watts, 2 El. & Bl. 452; 22 L. J. M. C. 149; 17 Jur. 790 Woolmer, Ex parte, 2 D. M. & G. 665; 17 Jur. 1903. Wright v. Callander, 2 D. M. & G. 652; 21 L. J. Ch. 787; 16 Jur. 647; Wryghte's Case, 5 D. M. & G. 636; 16 Jur. 812 NOTE. The first and last pages of the original report, according to the paging by which the original reports are usually cited, are noted at the head of each case, and references to the same paging are continued in the margin of the text. b R.R.-VOL. XCV. The Revised VOL. XCV. Reports. CHANCERY. BOLTON v. POWELL. (2 D. M. & G. 1–27; S. C. 14 Beav. 275; 16 Jur. 24.) [Obsolete law and practice as to enforcing in equity the liability of sureties for bonds taken on the grant of administration by the Ecclesiastical Courts.] 1852. March 11, 12. TURNER v. TURNER. (2 D. M. & G. 28—48; S. C. 21 L. J. Ch. 422; 19 L. T. O. S. 15.) At the hearing of a suit to establish a will, an issue was directed at the instance of the heiress-at-law, who was a married woman. Before any trial she and her husband presented a petition, stating that at the urgent request of their children (who were devisees), they had agreed to withdraw all opposition to the will, upon being allowed their costs, and praying that the order directing the issue might be discharged upon these terms. Upon this petition, an order was made according to the prayer, and purporting to be made upon the consent of the married woman by her counsel. Subsequently a private Act of Parliament was obtained authorizing leases to be made of the devised estates. The married woman was one of the petitioners for the Act, and was excepted from the saving clause, and the Act recited the will, and proceeded upon the assumption of its validity. Some years afterwards the married woman presented a petition to rehear the cause: Held, upon the rehearing, that the order discharging the direction for an issue was binding upon the husband, but not upon the wife. Semble, per Lord CRANWORTH, that if at the hearing a married heiressat-law does not ask for an issue, she is bound by the decree. THIS was an appeal from an order of the MASTER OF THE ROLLS, acceding to a motion on the part of the plaintiff, to take off the R.R.- -VOL. XCV. 1 TURNER v. TURNER. [ *29 ] [ *30 ] file a petition of rehearing, presented by Mary the wife of Will S. Meryweather, who were two of the defendants. The bill was filed on the 3rd of October, 1829, by the in children of the petitioner Mrs. Meryweather, seeking to estal the will of their grandfather, Mr. William Turner, whose heiress law and customary heiress Mrs. Meryweather was. By the freehold and copyhold estates were devised upon certain tr under which the infant plaintiffs were interested. Mrs. Meryweather and her husband joined in their answer, thereby admitted the due execution of the will. They had rece a legacy of 500l., bequeathed by the will to Mrs. Mery weather, presented a petition in the cause for payment to them of annuity of 500l. per annum, also given to her by the will. On the 25th of January, 1832, the cause came on for hear when upon the application of Mrs. Meryweather, an issue deris vel non was directed, the adult plaintiffs being directed to plaintiffs at law. On the 27th of November, 1832, an order was made substitu the trustees of the will as plaintiffs in the issue. From this orde substitution Mr. and Mrs. Meryweather had unsuccessfully appea On the 5th of February, 1833, no trial of the issue having ta place, Mr. and Mrs. Mery weather presented a petition in the ca to have the order for it discharged. This petition contained following allegations: That the testator was, at the time of the execution of his will codicil, under the influence of persons hostile to Mr. and Meryweather, who, taking advantage of his impaired state of m compelled him to make such will and codicil. That the petition had been guided throughout the before-mentioned proceeding opposing the said will and codicil, from a deep sense of injury, from the conviction of the necessity for them to clear t characters from the imputations conveyed by the will and cod more particularly as the said testator had therein directed that guardianship of the petitioner's children should be removed f them; that the petitioner's said children had always lived with th on terms of the greatest affection. That the testator had dire the payment of the said annuity of 500l. to Mrs. Meryweather a way degrading to the feelings of herself and her husband; that the petitioners had, at the *urgent request of the three a children who were plaintiffs, consented and agreed to withdraw further opposition to the will, the adult children being willing |