430 MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS

mentioned by the name of John Bagby of Calvert County Planter did for
himself his Heirs Ex^rs and Adm^rs Remise Acquitt and fully Discharge the
Said Nicholas Scarfe by the name of Nicholas Scarfe of the Same County
Carpenter his Heirs Ex^rs and Adm^rs of and from all manner of Actions Suits
Accounts Debts and Demands which he the Said John [631] Bagby then had
Against the Said Nicholas Scarfe his Heirs Adm^rs or Assigns or might have
had or Should have ag^t the Said Nicholas his Heirs Ex^rs or Adm^rs as being
a bondsman or Security for the due Admⁿ of the Estate of John Ford of the
Said County deced and father to his then Wife Mary So that it might not
hinder him from the Recovery of his Said fathers Negroes from other person
or persons he the Said John Released as above from the begining of the
World and for Ever all which the Said Dorothy is ready is ready [sic] to
Verifye and therefore prays Judgment of the Said Mary her Action af^d Ag^t
the Said Dorothy to have or mantain Ought without that the Said Dorothy
will Verifye that the Said Nicholas Scarfe in the release af^d mentioned And
Nicholas Scarfe who became bound with the Said Diana Ford and John Rose
for the due Admⁿ of the Estate of the Said John Ford are one and the Same
person and not others or diverse and that the Said John Bagby by Whose
Means Instigation procurement the Action af^d is Commenced and who Inter-
married with the Said Mary Ford and John Bagby in the Release af^d men-
tioned are one and the Same person and not other or diverse. And the Said
Mary protesting that the Said Diana Ford was not Seized of any Lands nor pos-
sessed of any Goods or Chatties at the [sic] of the Executing of the Writeing
Obligatory for the due Admⁿ of the deced John Fords Estate as af^d Save the
Goods and Chatties which were of the Said John Ford at the Time of his
Death protesting also that the Said John Rose and Nicholas Scarfe had not
any Goods or Chatties Lands or Tenements to the Value of fifty Pounds
Sterling at the time of the Sealing and Delivering the Admⁿ Bond af^d The
Said Mary Saith That the plea of the af^d Dorothy above by Rejoinder pleaded
and the Matter therein Contained are not Sufficient in Law to barr her the
Said Mary from haveing her Action af^d to Which She hath no need nor by
the Land is bound to answer and this She is ready to Verifye Wherefore for
want of a Sufficient Rejoynder in this part the Same Mary prays Judgment
and her Debt af^d togeather with her Damages by Occasion of Detaining the
Same Debt to her to be Adjudged. And for Causes of Demurrer According
to the forme of the Statutes Sheweth that the Def^ts rejoynder does not answer
to the Replication of the Said Mary but is a Manifest Departure therefrom
And also for that the Said Rejoynder is one Entire Rejoynder which yet
Contains two Distinct Matters which require Seperate Issues (that is to Say)
Whether the Said Diana John and Nicholas Obligors as af^d were able and
Sufficient Security etc. And also whether Such release was made as in the
Said Rejoynder is alledged w^ch are distinct Matters Independant one on
the other and require Seperate Issues and both go to the Whole Action, also