110 BURGH v. SCOTT.—1 BLAND.

required, and they refused then to receive the same and give up
the negroes, and have since put the defendants to very great ex-
pense in recovering their claim, they might well have been justi-
fied * in refusing to allow such credit. And they state, that
a credit for $392.90, the amount of those two sums, and inte-
rest upon them, was endorsed on the Jieri facias, issued on the said
decree, and the balance only was required to be made by the said
execution, which balance they aver they are justly entitled to, and
that no other deduction or discount ought to be allowed against
the amount of the claim, as stated w the said decree." And they
further deny all fraud, &c., as alleged in the bill, &c.

These defendants, Thomas Burch and others, by their petition
allege, that the plaintiff's, William Scott and others, had issued no
subpoenas, nor applied for any order of publication against these
defendants, who are non-residents, as prayed by their bill; that
they, on learning that such a bill had been filed, have answered
thereto; and now pray, that the order of the 16th November, 1825,
may be revoked.

BLAND, C., 4th May, 1826.—On the foregoing application it is
ordered, that the order of the 16th November last be dissolved
and revoked, unless cause to the contrary be shewn on the fourth
day of the next term. Provided a copy of this order, together
with a copy of the foregoing petition, be served on the complain-
ants or their solicitor, on or before the first day of June next.

A copy of this order having been served as required, the case
was afterwards brought before the Court for its determination.

BLAND, C., 25th July, 1826.—This case standing ready for hear-
ing, on the notice given in pursuance of the order of the 4th of
May last, and the solicitors of the parties having been fully heard,
the proceedings were read and considered.

The Chancellor feels every disposition to relieve this case from
all embarrassing forms, and to reach its merits, if practicable. It
will, therefore, be necessary to disengage the complainants' sub-
stantial equity and object from the forms with which they have
been clothed; and to examine their bill with a due regard to their
equity and object. The substance of their complaint is, that a
decree has been obtained against one, which materially affects all
of them, erroneously; by fraud, by surprise, for much more than
is due; or, to say the least, improperly and to the exclusion of a
good and available defence. And upon the truth of these allega-
tions, they ground their equity to have the decree of the 4th of
August last set aside, their undented credits allowed, their defence
let in, and the matters in * controversy heard upon the
merits. This is the object, and the mode chosen by them to