240 THE BANK v. DUGAN.—2 BLAND.

into this creditors' suit as a co-plaintiff, paying a proportion of
the expenses, &c.

BLAND, C., 23d October, 1829.—It has long been the practice
to allow a creditor to come in at any time after a creditor's bill,
such as this is, has been filed; and before as well as after a decree
to account has been passed before the assets have been actually dis-
tributed. Strike's Case, 1 Bland, 85. Therefore it is ordered,
that the said Elizabeth Blair be and she is hereby admitted as a
party plaintiff in this suit upon the terms prayed.

On the 8th of December, 1329, the defendant put in an answer
purporting to respond to all the matters of the bill; and then
adding thereto a plea of a prior suit and decree, in the Orphans'
Court of Baltimore County, embracing the same matter in bar of
this suit.

To this answer and plea the plaintiffs took the following excep-
tions; first, for that the said defendant has not admitted or denied,
that the said executors discounted upwards of $20,000 in notes
and other securities, or what other amount, which the said execu
tors had received for the sale of their testator's property, a few
days, and when, before the bond of said defendant was credited to
said Glarke's estate, as stated in the said complainant's bill.
Second, for that said defendant has not stated when and at what
time each and all of the sums of money received and paid by him,
and by said executors were received and paid; but has referred to
the several accounts of the executors returned to the Orphans'
Court, and exhibited with said complainants' bill, to shew when
the amounts were paid and received, whereas said accounts do not
shew when said several amounts were paid or received. Third
* because said defendant has not brought into this Court the
256 books of account of said James Clarke, nor offered to do so:
nor has he produced and brought into this Court, nor offered to do
so, the bond of said defendant to said Clarke; and has assigned no
reason for his omission to do so. The plaintiffs then go on to state
six other exceptions to the sufficiency of the answer; and then they
say tenth, because the said answer is accompanied by, or incorpo-
rates a plea which covers the whole matter of said bill of com-
plainant; and which, if good and sufficient, would render said
answer incompatible, expensive, and unnecessary, And is other
wise, and in othei respects evasive, and insufficient. Whereupon
an order was passed appointing a day for hearing these exceptions.
After which the matter was brought before the Court.

BLAND, C., 14th January, 1830.—The exceptions to the answer
of the defendant .standing ready for hearing, and having been