The Vice-Chancellor: This case appears to fall within the rule laid down in Smets v. Williams, 4 Paige’s C. R. 367, and exonerates the complainants from paying the defendant’s costs on dismission of the bill. Some specific property, namely, household furniture, is pointed out which the complainants had some reason to believe might be applicable to their judgment, but which was afterwards swept off by a landlord’s warrant, it was sold for more than one hundred dollars. The complainants are willing to have their bill dismissed ; and, under the circumstances, they are entitled to have it dismissed, each party paying their own costs.