24 KIPP v. HANNA.—2 BLAND.

defendant Alexander, discharged from all incumbrance; that the
defendant Warner, might account for the rents and profits; and
that the plaintiffs might have such other relief as was suited to
the nature of their ease.

An order of publication was passed, warning the absent defen-
dants to appear and answer on or before the 31st of July, 1821,
which was published as directed.

The defendant, Alexander B. Hanna, on the 2d of December,
1820, put in his separate answer, in which he said, that he had
conveyed the property to the defendant Warner, as stated in the
bill, for the purpose of securing to his wife her separate fortune,
amounting to about $5,000, which he had received and agreed to
settle on her; that he was then in good and solvent circumstances,
and owned effects sufficient to pay all his debts, leaving a very
considerable surplus, without the property "so conveyed; that he

* afterwards met with considerable losses at sea, and other-
28 wise, by reason whereof he was compelled to take the bene-
fit of the insolvent laws, as stated; and he denied all fraud, &c.
To this answer the plaintiffs tiled exceptions on the loth of De-
cember, 1S20.

The defendant, Warner, by his answer, admitted, that the con-
veyance was made to him, as set forth in the bill, and said, that
afterwards the defendant, Sarah, the wife of Alexander, furnished
him with $1,098.42, with which he had satisfied the claims upon
the property held by the defendants Jacquin aud Burhing; that
ever since the execution of the deed to him by the defendant Alex-
ander, the property had been held and enjoyed by his wife and
children; and this defendant denied all fraud, &c.

After the subpcena against Jacquin had been returned summoned,
and before he had answered, his death was suggested; and the
case thus abated as to him.

The defendant, Tyson, by his answer, admitted, that he had
been appointed one of the trustees of the defendant, Jacquin; but
averred, that he had no knowledge of any other matter set forth
in the bill.

The defendant, Hall, by his answer, admitted, that he had been
appointed one of the trustees of the defendant, Jacquin, as stated;
but averred that he had never accepted the trust; and disclaimed
all interest in this suit.

KILTY, C., loth December, 1820.—On motion it is ordered, that
the bill be dismissed as against the defendant, Andrew Hall, with
costs.

The defendant, Sarah, wife of the defendant, Alexander, having
failed to answer, and having been attached for not answering, the