26 KIPP v. HANNA.—2 BLAND.

prayed for by the complainants," upon which, on the 24th of
April, 1823, the Chancellor said "let the commission issue;" and
it was issued accordingly.

On the 15th of December, 1823, the plaintiffs, by their petition,

stated that the infant defendant, Andrew Hanna, had returned to

this State, and was then a resident of the City of Batiimore, but

*had not answered. Whereupon they prayed a subpoena

30 against him: which was ordered accordingly.

The infant defendant, Andrew Hanna, on the 3d of May, 1824,
put in his answer by guardian ad litem, in which he stated that he
had been informed and believed, that his father had executed the
conveyance as set forth in the bill; but he averred that it was
made for a valuable consideration, and at a time when he was sol-
vent, &c.

Under the commission which had been issued upon the order of
the 24th of April, 1823, the depositions of witnesses were taken,
and several instruments had been authenticated, all of which were
returned and filed on the 8th of June, 1824; and after the commis-
sion had remained on file the time required, the plaintiffs entered
on the docket, a rule hearing next term; and the case was accord-
ingly brought before the Court.

BLAND, C., 18th March, 1825.—The counsel for the defendants
insisted that the case was not in a situation to have been set down
for hearing; and therefore that the rule hearing was erroneously
or improvidently entered upon the docket. And they also objected,
that the defendant, Sarah, the wife of Alexander, should not have
been made to answer separately, but jointly with her husband; of
that, however, the Chancellor deems it unnecessary now to say
anything. It is obvious, that the case is not now ready either for
a reference to the auditor, or for a final hearing.

After which, the attention of the Court was again called to the
case, with a request to reconsider this matter.

BLAND, C., 28th April, 1825.—The Chancellor has again care-
fully looked over the papers, as requested by the plaintiffs' solici-
tor, and finds nothing to remove the objections taken to the man-
ner in which the commission was issued under which the testimony
has been taken. It appears that the defendant, Andrew Hanna,
could not have given his consent to the order of the 24th of April,
1823, either in person or by counsel; and therefore as to him, and
as to all the other defendants, not represented by the solicitor who
assented to the issuing of that commission, it could only have been
issued in the regular mode of conducting adverse proceedings,
which was not the case; and consequently, the testimony as taken
can be of no avail against any but the three defendants, with the