16 CRAPSTER v. GRIFFITH

conveying all her real estate, in the proceedings mentioned,
to Dennis D. Howard, who had conveyed the same to this plain-
tiff; after which she died. That the defendant had, while he acted
as guardian of the late Harriet, and during her minority, obtained
from the land office, a warrant to affect some vacancy, under which
be had obtained a patent for nine and three-quarters acres of
vacancy adjoining her land, which was obtained for her benefit.
That the plaintiff had not been able to deliver possession of the
land to the defendant, as directed by the decree; because he could
not ascertain its true location; and the defendant had taken no
steps to ascertain it; but intended, as the plaintiff believed, to
throw down the fences, and expose the plaintiff's crops to great
damage, under pretence of resorting to the land he had so obtained.
Whereupon it was prayed, that the defendant might be ordered to
deliver to the plaintiff the negroes, born after the close of the com*
mission, and before the decree; to account for the value of the
labour of the other negroes, from the 19th of December, 1813, the
date of the auditor's report, to the last day of November, 1816,
when they were delivered : to convey to the plaintiff the adjacent
vacant land for which he had obtained a patent, upon being re-
funded the amount of expenses incurred in obtaining the same;
and that he might have such other relief as was suited to the
nature of his case.

The defendant, in his answer to this bill, admits the proceedings
in the former suit, and that he had not delivered the negroes before
the time mentioned; because the plaintiff had failed to comply
with the terms of the decree on his part; that he then held the
three negro children, as alleged; because he believed himself to
be lawfully entitled to them. That he had not taken up any vacant
land adjacent to the land of his ward, or for her use; but had
obtained a patent for some land, for which he had fully paid. And
he further alleged, that as it appeared to be the object of the plain-
tiff to have the former decree opened, and the case reheard, he
prayed to be permitted to introduce and substantiate sundry claims
and allowances, as then specified, which he had not obtained the
Benefit of under the former decree.

The plaintiff put in a general replication to this answer; upon
which a commission was issued, and the depositions of several
witnesses taken and returned on the 18th of January, 1819. After
which the ease was brought before the court.