582 INDEX.

PATENTS—Continued.

survey, does not, in virtue of such warrant, acquire a right oT pre-
emption in the adjoining vacancy. Buckingham, vs. Doitfy, 31.
2. Yet patents obtained by a party who has no legal title to the original,
or upon a certificate of resurvey, including vacancy not contiguous to
the original, will not be vacated, except for fraud, in fact, alleged and
proved, though upon a caveat filed in the land office, they Would have
been refused. Ib.

PAYMENTS.

See EVIDENCE, 6.

APPLICATION OF PAYMENTS, 1 to 4.

PERSONAL PROPERTY.

See SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 8 to 10.

WOOD CUT MOT REALTY.
PETITION.

See CHANCERY PRACTICE, 3, 39, 45.
PLEADINGS.

1. The principles that regulate equity pleadings will admit a different in-
terpretation to be put upon a particular sentence than would be re-
quired by grammatical rule. Small vs. Owmpi 363.

2. The complainant cannot rely upon the admissions of the answer, and
obtain relief upon those admissions unless he has set them out in his
bill. Ib.

3. A complainant in his bill must put in issue whatever he intends proving,
otherwise the evidence will be excluded. The Court of Chancery de-
crees only secmduin allegata etprobata. Ib.

See PRACTICE IN CHANCERY.
POSTHUMOUS CHILDREN.

1. Courts of equity wilt use all possible ingenuity to construe testamentary
expressions in such a manner as to include all children living at the
testator's death, and a child in venire so mere, is considered as living at
that time. Co»ui vs. Conn, 2]2.

2. When the testator stands in the relation of parent to the legatees, a
court of equity will lay hold of any general expression which will in-
clude all the children, though it may be apparent from the context
that only children in existence when the will was made, were within
the contemplation of the testator. Ib.

3. Yet when it is evident that the testator really forgot that other children
might be born to him, and has, upon the face of the instrument, made
provision for only such as were living at the date of the will, it is im-
possible to supply the defect, and givesuch after born children any
provision, notwithstanding the anxiety of the court to do so. S>,

4. Where the testator has described the children ty name, among whom the
estate is to be divided, upon the happening of a contingency, it is im-
possible to bring a posthumous child within the description. Ib.
POUNDAGE FEES.

1. As a general rule, the defendant, and not the plaintiff, is answerable for
poundage fees. Gilmar vs. Brieit, 40.