464 MURDOOK'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

they did having been in any way prohibited by an injunction of
this Court.

received, he proposes, that they sign and file in this Court an agreement, to
the following effect:

First, that the foregoing decree be set aside by another decree; second, that
the new decree direct Samuel Norwood, on the first day of November next,
to pay or bring into this Court, to be paid to Edward Norwood, the sum of
£500; third, that each party release to the other all right to that part of
United Friendship in his possession under their agreement; fourth, that
Edward convey, transfer, and release, to Samuel all right to the ierry in the
bill mentioned, or to the profits thereof; fifth, that Samuel, on the first day
of November, 1801, 1802, 1803, and 1804, pay or bring in as aforesaid, the
sum of £875; that is to say. Samuel shall bring in. or pay the sum of £1.500,
without interest, by four equal annual instalments; sixth, that on Samuel's
failure, at any of the periods, to pay or bring in, he shall be liable to the
usual execution or process, to compel him; seventh, that each party bear his
own costs, those of recording to be equally divided.

Supposing the ferry to produce monthly £80, the annual amount is £960.
But it is probable that the receipts will not be so great throughout the year
as they have lately been. Suppose then an average of £70, that is. £80 each,
for six months, and £60 each, for the other six months. We have then £840
for the amount of the year. From this £840 may be deducted for all ex-
penses and contingencies, at least £140, which reduces the profits to £700,
one-half of which is £350. To suppose this profit to continue, we must sup-
pose that no other ferry to the federal city is to be erected—that the rates of
ferriage are to continue, &c. &c. &c. In short. I should imagine a man
entitled in perpetuum, to one-half of the ferry, carried on as it ought to be.
and having no dispute whatever about his right, would make a good bargain
in selling it for £3,000. But the right is not clearly established, Samuel
Norwood claims the ferry landing as his own right; contends, that Edward
Norwood has no right whatever, and that the agreement respecting the ferry
was only for carrying it on in partnership for a very short term, or whilst
the apparatus should last. In short, it is extremely doubtful, whether the
Chancellor's decree will atand; and even, whether in the end Edward Nor-
wood will have any right in the ferry, or if he should have such right,
whether, under all circumstances, it may be profitable. Would it not then
be prudent in Edward Norwood to accept the offer of about £1,250 for his
share of the ferry, to be paid at four annual instalments ? At what expense
is his suit to be conducted ! With what trouble and vexation is it to be car-
ried on ! How uncertain is the issue! and ruinous must the loss of his
cause prove! Arguments for Samuel Norwood's acceptance of the pro-
posed accommodation are equally powerful, supposing the Chancellor's de-
cree to stand.

From this decree the defendant appealed, and gave his bond in the penalty
of £2,000, with two sureties. A solicitor certified thus, "the above sureties
are sufficient." Upon which the Chancellor endorsed the bond thus, iLsure-
ties approved. 14th June, 1800."

BY THE COURT OF APPEALS—JONES, MACKALL, POTTS, and DENNIS.—Novem-
ber Term, 1802.—Decreed, that such part of the decree complained of, for
ratifying and confirming the last stated account and report of the auditor,
whereby the defendant was adjudged, and decreed to pay to the complain-