LINGAN v. HENDERSON.—1 BLAND. 255

be in some respects inaccurate; because they were not in posses-
sion of that information which would enable them to set forth their
case with greater certainty; and therefore, they pray a discovery
of the defendants. If then the statements of the bill were in any
essential particular incorrect, the defendants should have objected
to it on that account; but they have not done so; and therefore
the plaintiffs are entitled to have their bill now regarded as entirely
sufficient, so far as it sets forth a case which, in substance, enti-
tles them to the relief they ask. Carew v. Johnston, 2 Scho. &
Lefr. 305; Wright v. Plumptre, 3 Mad. 480; Zane v. Zane, 6 Mun.
400.

There is no proof of any thing like a trust; therefore, that alter-
native view of the plaintiff's case may be at once put aside. The
* deed of the 8th of May, 1807, proves, that James M. Lingan
did then convey the tract of four hundred and twenty acres 272
of land in the bill mentioned to John Henderson; the receipt or
memorandum of the 10th of June, 1807, which has been authenti-
cated, proves, that the purchase money was not then paid; and
the witness Henry Waring, in consistency with, and in corrobora-
tiou of these instruments of writing, proves, that John Hender-
sou, in his life-time, repeatedly admitted he had purchased the
land referred to in those instruments of writing, for which he was
to pay thirteen dollars and one-third of a dollar per acre; but that
he had paid no part of the purchase money, and was unable to
pay it; and this witness further proves, that the land was held by
John Henderson until his death, when it descended to his children,
who are defendants to this suit. There is no proof of the pur-
chase money ever having been paid. It is admitted, that James
M. Lingan is dead, and that these plaintiff's are his legal represen-
tatives. This is the substance of the case, according to the proofs
and in all material points, it accords exactly with one of the alter-
natives of the case set forth in the bill.

Whence it is sufficiently clear, that the plaintiffs have sustained
their case in opposition to the general defence of David English.
And, as there is not the least evidence of any payment or satis-
faction ever having been made in the manner relied on in defence
by the defendant Lydia English, the plaintiffs may obtain relief
against her also as well as her husband.

The defendant Richard Henderson has put his defence entirely
upon his plea of the Statute of Limitations; and the plaintiffs
having established their case in all respects in opposition to the
other defences; and the other defendants having made default;
the whole controversy is thus reduced to the single question,
whether this be a valid defence against the whole or not. It is,
therefore, proper, that it should be carefully considered.

All Statutes of Limitation proceed upon the policy comprised in
the maxim, interest reipublicae at sit finis litium; that some lapse