Smith v. . Estes

now renewed that order, though it was strenuously urged there had never been a decree to account. He did it he said, upon the ground of the former order ; but he considered the practice to be in some cases, ‘hat such a reference did not preclude the parties from insisting that he Ought not to be decreed to account. And owing to the particular circumstances of this ca£e, he would consider that the reference should not conclude, if the merits ware with the defendant; but he would not order that the said reference should not preclude Mallett fretft insisting that he should not be decreed to account-»

Sjntre-de hoc»