268 CONTEE v. DAWSON.—2 BLAND,

under the seal of the proper officer, that the person who adminis-
tered the oath or affirmation was then in truth the officer he pro-
fessed to be; Hartshorne v. Hands, 2d June, 1795, MS.; as where
an answer had been sworn to before a justice of the peace of the
(District of Columbia; and it was certified, in the usual form, by
the clerk of the county, that he was duly commissioned at that
time, the answer was received. Murdock v. Forrest. 1803 and. 1815,
MS.; Gibson v. Tilton, I Bland, 352.

But in the case under consideration, the affidavit of the truth of
the answer of the defendant Philip A. L. Contee, purports to have
been made before a justice"of the peace of Westmoreland County,
* in the State of Virginia, without any further authentication
285 whatever. This, if allowed, would place the simple attesta-
tion of every justice of the peace, over the whole Union, upon a
looting with that of such officers of this State. I do not think it
would be safe to extend our comity so far. A reasonable and just
degree of caution demands, that some solemn additional public tes-
timonial should be required to shew, that the judicial officer or
magistrate before whom such an affidavit has been made was, in
truth, the public functionary he states himself to be. I am, there-
fore, of opinion, that the authentication of this paper is not such
as to entitle it, on that ground, to be received as the answer of the
defendant Philip A. L. Contee.

But the plaintiffs have expressly consented to receive this as the
answer on oath of Philip A. L. Contee, without any further or
other authentication; and that they may so receive it, is warranted
by every day's practice of this Court, as well as by many authori-
ties to be found in the English books to the same effect. —— v.
Lake., 6 Ves. 171; —— v. Gwillim, 6 Vex. 285; Bayley v. De Wal-
kiers, 10 Ves. 441; Harding v. Harding, 12 Vex. 159; 1 Harri. Prac.
Chan. 285. If, on its being so received by the plaintiff, it will bind
the respondent as effectually, as if made upon oath, I can see no
reason why it should not be equally as binding upon any co-defend-
ant so far as his interest may be affected by the answer of such
defendant on oath; since such co-defendant could not except to it
because of its not having been sworn to, or because of its insuffi-
ciency, or for any other cause. I am," therefore, of opinion, no
fraud being shewn or even intimated, that this must be regarded
as the answer of Philip A. L. Contee, to all intents and purposes
whatever.

The next inquiry is, whether Eleanor Dawson has alleged, or
shewn a deficiency of assets. In her answer she says, "that she.
has not yet been able to settle up the estate of the said testator,
and that there are considerable debts uow due to the same which
are still unpaid; and the assets now in her possession are insuffi-
cient to discharge the debts due by the testator."