460 ESTEP v. WATKINS.—1 BLAND.

in lieu of dower, that the heirs of the late Charles D. Hodges
should convey the lands to this plaintiff; that Nicholas Watkins
brought suit, in the name of the administrator of the late Charles
D. Hodges, *on the bond so given by this plaintiff: and, in
487 September, 1817, recovered judgment for the whole amount
thereof; that this plaintiff' paid to Nicholas Watkins the full amount
due to him, after deducting two-thirteenths awarded to Claytor and
wife, which he also paid according to the terms of the decree; that
Nicholas Watkins is dead intestate, and administration on his
estate had been granted to these defendants Eachel H. Watkius
and Benjamin Watkins, who have revived the judgment recovered
by their intestate, to be released on the payment of $892.75 with
interest from the 2nd of October, 1827, and costs; upon which they
threatened to issue execution. Whereupon the plaintiff prayed
for an injunction to stay proceedings at law, &c.; which was granted
as prayed.

The defendant Claytor by his answer admitted the allegations
and facts set forth in the bill so far as he was concerned.

The defendants Rachel H. Watkins and Benjamin Watkius put
in their joint answer, in which they also admitted the facts and
circumstances set forth in the bill. But they averred, ''that the
said bond was assigned to their intestate during the life-time of
the said Charles D. Hodges; that their intestate paid the full
amount due on the bond at the time of the assignment to him;
that he had no knowledge of any deduction to be made therefrom
in any event whatever; and these defendants do positively deny,
that their intestate received bonds or notes in payment of the
aforesaid bond; but they aver, that the bonds and notes which he
did receive were received to be applied when collected towards the
payment of the said bond; and that their intestate did, after due
diligence in the collection of the said bonds and notes, apply what
had been so collected to the diminution of the amount due on the
bond, and credit was therefore given to the complainant. These de-
fendants also aver, that the complainant's bill, mentioned in his
present bill, to which their intestate was a defendant, was answered
by him under a full belief and with an understanding by him and
the complainant, that the said suit should not affect the interest
of their intestate in the aforesaid bond, and should only operate
to enable the complainant to obtain a conveyance for the land he
had purchased; that their intestate relying on this understanding,
and believing his interest was not to be damnified, employed no
counsel nor made any defence, but suffered the counsel for the
complainant to draw his answer, and the proceedings to be as
hastily determined as possible; and that when the decree was
passed in the said case, it was not considered as at* all
488 affecting the interests of their intestate, either by him or
by the complainant. These defendants further aver, that long