404 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

privilege in question, deny it, and make it the subject of con-
test, the objection could not be maintained.

It seems to me, that if the testator had designed to revoke
the privilege in question, and throw these parties altogether
upon other sources of supply for their wood and timber, he
would have done so in express terms and not have left it to im-
plication. He certainly does not do so in express terms, nor
is there such an .inconsistency, or conflict, between the provi-
sions of the will and codicil that both may not well stand to-
gether.

That the weight of the burden to be borne by the Anne
Arundel county land, was intended to be diminished by the
purchase of the land mentioned in the codicil, is, I think, quite
apparent; and, therefore, in estimating the value of that bur-
den, and the corresponding privilege, it was the duty of the
parties selected for the purpose, to take that circumstance into
their consideration; and we are told by Dr. Cheston, one of
those parties, that they were aware of it, and of the rights of
Mr. Smith, under the will and codicil of his father, which were
before them.

It must, therefore, be presumed, that the proper weight was
given by the commissioners to this source of supply, and more
especially would the court be indisposed to reject their valua-
tion for this reason, when the petitioners themselves did not
make the objection in their petition, so as to give the other
side an opportunity of denying it in their answer, and rebutting
it by proof.

My opinion is, that the maxim omnia rite esse acta prasu-
mvmtw, is aoplicable to the proceedings of these commissioners,
and that although they were required to report to the court, sub-
ject to its further order and direction, yet still, every fair in-
tendment should be made in support of their acts.

They were authorized and required to make the valuation
upon oath, according to the best of their judgment, and this they
say they did; and by no allegation in the petition is their judg-
ment in this respect called in question.

In the case of Cecil vs. Dorsey et al., this court was recently