BURCH v. SCOTT.

It is admitted by the defendants, that the decree of the 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 hundred 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 revision and correc-
tion. 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.(r)
And it is not alleged by his opponents, that they have lost, or been
deprived of any means of sustaining their pretensions.(s) 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 revoked; but it must be upon the terms of paying all
costs, (t)

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 revoked,
rescinded, and annulled. And it is further decreed, that the said
William Scott do forthwith pay unto the complainants all the costs
which they may 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-
cation, (1 G. & J. 393,) the plaintiffs again sted out a fieri
facias upon the decree of the 4th of August, 1825, on which exe-
cution, it is understood, that the plaintiffs, as before, endorsed a
credit for so much as they admitted had been awarded to them
more than was due.

(r) Stanard v. Rogers, 4 Hen. & Mun. 438; Erwin v. Vint, 6 Mun. 287.—
(s) Wooster v. Woodhull, 1 John. C. C. 589.—(t) November, 1787, ch, 9, s. 6.

17