BURCH v. SCOTT.—1 BLAND. 119

communicated to Scott's counsel; which after a considerable in-
terval was again mentioned to him. And it is expressly charged,
that Scott himself knew the fact before the decree was signed.
That Scott's solicitor was very negligent is most manifest. But it
does not clearly appear, that Scott, himself, is chargeable with
negligence to a greater extent than about four or five months; for
it is not said by Burch, in his answer, how long it was before the
date of the decree, that Scott was informed his answer had not
been filed: but it would seem, that the counsel for the plaintiffs in
that case, to be assured of the fact whether Scott's answer was
filed or not, inquired for it, and searched the papers so late as
about the first of July, 1825. Robsont v. Cranwell, I Dick. 61.

* It is admitted by the defendants, that the decree of the 129
4th of August last is for a greater amount than it ought to
have been given for; and that it has awarded to them three hun-
dred and ninety-two dollars and ninety cents more than was
actually due, and more than they had any right whatever to claim
or recover. In this respect, therefore, it confessedly requires re-
vision and correction. It is a decree by default, and not upon the
merits. But Scott avers upon oath, that he has a good defence
against the whole claim of the defendants, which he prays to have
let in. Stanard v. Rogers, 4 Hen. & Mun. 438; Erwin v. Vint, 6
Mun. 267. And it is not alleged by his opponents, that they have
lost, or been deprived of any means of sustaining their preten-
sions. Wooster v. Woodhull, 1 John. C. C. 539. In short, under
all the peculiar circumstances of this case, it appears to be fit and
proper, that the decree of the 4th of August last should be re-
voked; but it must be upon the terms of paying all costs. Novem-
ber, 1787, ch. 9, s. 6.

Whereupon, it is decreed, that the decree of this Court, passed
and signed on the 4th day of August, 1825, in the case wherein
Thomas Burch, administrator de bonis non of Jesse Burch, Fielder
Burch, and others, are plaintiffs, against William Scott, defendant,
together with all the proceedings in the said suit subsequent to the
fourth day of July Term, 1824, be and the same are hereby re-
voked, rescinded, and annulled. And it is further decreed, that
the said William Scott do forthwith pay unto the complainants all
the costs which they have incurred in the prosecution of the said
suit subsequent to the 4th day of July Term, 1824, to be taxed by
the register. And it is further decreed, that the answer of the
said Scott, purporting to have been received and filed on the 7th
of December, 1825, in the said case, be and the same is hereby
allowed to be filed as his answer in the said suit, subject to all
legal exceptions thereto.

From this decree the plaintiffs in the original bill appealed, and
the Court of Appeals having reversed this decree without qualifi-