JONES v. MAGILL.—1 BLAND. 187

to the whole transaction, is able to speak of the facts from his own
knowledge; and, therefore, it is important that he should answer,
as well because he is disinterested, having settled his final account
and been discharged as guardian, as because Magill, who claims
under him, will be bound by his answer. Osborn v. U. S. Bank, 9
Wheat. 832; Field v. Holland, G Cran. 24.

It is true, that a defendant has no direct means of enforcing
an answer to the bill from his co-defendant; but he may urge for-
ward the plaintiff to do his dutj in that particular; and, certainly,
at the instance of a defendant anxious to have the restriction of an
injunction removed, the Court would suffer no unreasonable delay
from the plaintiff. A responding defendant may laj the plaintiff'
under a rule further proceedings, which the Court will not hesitate
to enforce so as to compel him to extract an answer from a tardy
co-defendant with as little delay as possible; or else the bill may
be dismissed and the injunction dissolved; Anonymous, 9 Fes. 512;
Depeyster v. Graves, 2 John. Chan. Ca. 148; (k) for, in equity as at

(k) TONG v. OLIVEE,—This bill was filed on the 23d of October, 1803, by
William long against Richard Oliver, and also Robert Berry and Peter
Snyder, administrators of Benjamin Abbot. It states, that the plaintiff, in
the year 1798, purchased of the intestate a tract of land in Pennsylvania;
that he paid part of the purchase money, gave his bond for £300. being the
balance, and obtained possession of the land; that Abbot gave an order on
this plaintiff in favor of the defendant Oliver, for the whole sum due on
the bond: that on presentation of the order, the plaintiff paid £200, and
executed his bond for the remaining £100 to, and in the name of the de-
fendant Oliver; that the land was subject to an incumbiance for £32 at the
time of the sale, which the plaintiff would be compelled to pay and satisfy;
and yet. that suit had been brought on the bond, judgment obtained, and
an execution levied on the plaintiff's lands; that Abbot is since dead, and
the defendants Berry and Snyder were his administrators; upon which an
injunction was prayed for and granted to stay the proceedings at law.

On the 19th May. 1808, the defendants Berry and Snyder put in their joint
answer; the purport of which is sufficiently noticed in the Chancellor's
order. On the same day. the defendant Oliver not having answered, they
obtained the usual order to give notice of a motion to shew cause why the
injunction should not be dissolved at the next term.

KILTY, C., 1st March, 1809.—The motion for dissolving the injunction was
made by the defendants' counsel, no counsel for the complainant being in
Court. But as. according to the rule and practice of the Court, the defend-
ants would have been entitled to a dissolution, if the answers were con-
sidered sufficient, it is deemed proper to determine the case as it stands,
without any argument by the complainant.

The answer of Oliver is not filed. The Chancellor, without giving a posi-
tive opinion, is inclined to think, that unless it should be shewn, that he had
some knowledge of the transaction, or that his answer might be material, it
might be dispensed with, as he was only the nominal plaintiff at law.

But the answers of Berry and Snyder are not considered sufficient. The
answers of administrators must always be taken with a view to the reasons