ESTEP v. WATKINS.— 1 BLAND. 461

subsequent to the passage of the decree aforesaid, their intestate,
wishing to close this transaction relative to the bond aforesaid,
brought suit against the complainant; that the complainant, aware
of the understanding, previously here stated, and of his liability
to their intestate, gave their intestate a judgment for the amount
then due on the bond on his allowing all the credits which the
complainant was then entitled to. These defendants also state,
that at the April Term of Anne Arundel County Court, their in-
testate, in order to recover the balance then due on the aforesaid
bond, instituted proceedings to revive the judgment aforesaid
against the complainant; and that in consequence of the death of
their intestate pending the proceedings aforesaid, these defendants
appeared to the said suit, after which such proceedings were had,
that at the October Term of the said Court for 1827, a judgment
was obtained against the complainant in favor of the defendants
for the amount then ascertained to be due. These defendants do
positively deny that their intestate in receiving the sums of money
in part payment of the bond aforesaid, ever did receive the same
as a satisfaction thereof, or ever did admit that the bond was paid;
but on the contrary always considered the complainant liable to
to him for the amount of the last aforesaid judgment; and that
the complainant himself ever did, until a short time before the
judgment aforesaid was about to be revived, consider himself, as
these defendants believe, so liable to their intestate."

Upon a motion to dissolve the injunction on the coming in of
these answers, it was continued until the final hearing or further
order. After which the case was set down for final hearing by the
plaintiff on the bill and answers; and the solicitors of the parties
were fully heard.

BLAND, C., 6th August, 1828.—This case having been set down for
hearing on the bill and answers alone, without any general replica-
tion.—the answers must therefore be taken to be true in every par-
ticular, as well as to the matters alleged by way of avoidance as to
those directly responsive to the bill. That is, the defendants are to
be allowed the benefit of every fact advanced by them as a defence
in their answers, as fully as if it had been put in issue by the
plaintiff's general replication, and the defendants had established
it by proof. 3 Blue. Com. 448.

*But these administrators rest their defence on the fact,
that there was " an understanding by him, (their intestate,) 489
and the complainant, that the said suit, (in which the decree of
the 22nd of May, 1815, was passed,) 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." In other words they admit, that the decree of
the 22nd May, 1815, as it stands, is a sufficient basis for the plain-