8; Aislabie v. Rice, 3 Madd. see 261; Thorpe v. Freer, 4 Madd. 466.

(e) See Fenton v. Browne, 14 Ves. 144,150; Dakin v. Cope, 2 Russ. 175.

(f) Anon. v. Collinge, 3 Ves. & B. 143, n.; Wilson v. Clapham, 1 Jac. & W. 36.

(g) Newall v. Smith, 1 Jac. & W. 263.

(h) Guest v. Homfray, 5 Ves. 824.

(i) White v. Foljambe, 11 Ves. 337, 352; Willcox v. Bellaers, Turn. & Russ. 491.

(k) Marquis Townshend v. Stan-groom, 6 Ves. see 341.

(l) Winch v. Winchester, 1 Ves. & B. 380; and see 3 Y. & C. 517.

(m) Nokes v. Lord Kilmorey, 1 De G. & S. 444; and see Deverell v. Lord Bolton, 18 Ves. 505, 514; supra, p. 203.

(n) Sug. 661, referring to Western v. Perrin, 3 Ves & B. 197.

(o) Buxton v. Lister, 3 Atk. 387; and see 2 De G. & S. 346.

So, a purchaser obtaining a decree for specific performance, has been refused his costs, on the ground of the inadequacy of the consideration (p): so, where a purchaser's bill for the performance of a contract alleged to arise out of correspondence, was dismissed on the ground of the language being equivocal and not clearly amounting to an agreement, costs were refused (q): so, also, on the ground of the defendant having in his answer alleged fraud and circumvention, which he failed to prove (r), or having set up a false defence which the plaintiff has been obliged to disprove (s): so, if the purchaser elect to have his bill dismissed, upon its appearing that the vendor cannot make a title, the present practice seems to be to dismiss the bill without costs (t); unless, perhaps (u), his bill alleges that the vendor cannot make a title (w).

And it has been held that, if a bill is correctly filed on the authority of a reported decision, there being no authorities in conflict with it, and such decision is reversed, the plaintiff may thereupon, on motion, dismiss his bill without costs (x).

As to the 4th class of cases. - It not unfrequently happens that the party obtaining a decree has been clearly in the wrong, during all or a part only of the litigation; and if so, he must, as a general rule, pay all or a proportionate part (y) of the costs of the suit: e. g., in an exceptional case, where the plaintiff obtained a decree not in accordance with the prayer of his bill (z), he was made to pay the costs of the suit; so, "if a purchaser file a bill insisting that the vendor cannot make a title, he must pay the costs, whether he accept or refuse the title" (a): so, if a purchaser, being a plaintiff and aware of objections to the title, require a reference to the Master, and, on the Master reporting against the title, agree to waive the objections, he must pay the costs of the unnecessary investigation (b): so if, prior to the filing of the vendor's bill, the contract was resisted merely on the ground of want of title, and no title was shown before bill filed, the plaintiff, although he obtained a decree, will have to pay the costs up to the time when he showed a title (c); and this, although the purchaser, by his answer, unsuccessfully insist on the alleged illegality or abandonment of the contract (d); or even the general costs of the suit (e), except such costs as have been occasioned by improper contentions or objections made or taken by the defendant in the course of the suit (f): so, where a vendor, when before the Master, abandoned the ground on which he had previously relied, but established his title on another ground, and the Master reported generally in favour of the title, the purchaser was allowed the costs of the reference and the several applications to the Court (g). But the rule will not prevail where the purchaser, by resisting the contract on grounds other than of title (h), or by his improper conduct (i), or claim (k), has occasioned the litigation; or where, insisting on other objections, he has not accepted the vendor's offer to procure evidence which, if produced, would have perfected the title (l): so, if a purchaser file a bill for specific performance with an abatement of purchase-money, the question of abatement being the only one in dispute, if he fail upon this point the decree for specific performance will give costs against him (m): so, if the successful litigant introduce upon the pleadings unfounded allegations affecting the character (n) of his opponent, he will have to pay the costs thereby occasioned (o). But where the Court, merely on the ground of the personal hardship of the case as against the defendant, refuses to enforce specific performance, and dismisses the bill, it will not make him pay the plaintiff's costs (p).

Cases where, in contravention of general rule, successful litigant is made to pay costs.

(p) Burrowes v. Lock, 10 Ves. 470.

(q) Stratford v. Bosworth, 2 Ves. & B. 348; and see 6 Ves. 341.

(r) Thomas v. Phillipps, 11 Jur. 80, V. C. K. B.

(s) Field v. Churchill, 4 Jur. 739, C.

(t) Maiden v. Fyson, 9 Beav. 347.

(u) See Sug. 822, n. (e).

(w) Nicloson v. Wordsworth, 2 Sw. 365.

(x) Robinson v. Rosher, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 7; see also, as to mutual mistake, Broughton v. Lashmar, 5 Myl. & Cr. 136.

(y) See Farrow v. Rees, 4 Beav. 25.

(z) Mortimer v. Orchard, 2 Ves. jun. 243.

(a) Sug. 822, citing Nicloson v. Wordsworth, 2 Sw. 365, but with a query.

(b) Bennett v. Fowler, 2 Beav.302.

(c) Wilson v. Allen, 1 Jac. & W. 623; Sug. 826.

(d) Smith v. Leigh, Sug. 824; but the purchaser will not be allowed the extra costs occasioned by this unsuccessful defence, S. C.

(e) Knight v. Harden, Beames on Costs, 38; Townsend v. Champer-nowne, 3 Y. & Coll. 528.

(f) & C.

(g) Fielder v. Higginson, 3 Ves. & B. 142; Harrison v. Coppard, 2 Cox, 318.

(h) Croome v. Lediard, 2 Myl. & K. 293; Scoones v. Morrell, 1 Beav. 251; Taylor v. Brown, 2 Beav. 180; but see Sug. 823.

(i) Oxenden v. Lord Falmouth, cited Sug. 826.

(k) Wyvill v. Bishop of Exeter, 1 Price, 292.

Where a purchaser sets up a defence which prevents the plaintiff from obtaining the usual reference of title on motion, and fails to establish it, he may be at once directed to pay costs up to and inclusive of the hearing, without regard to the result of the reference (q).