BUCKINGHAM v. PEDDICOED.—2 BLAND. 437

as the bill requires, be compelled, if called on by the plaintiff, to
answer interrogatories, and to make such disclosures as may be
necessary, to enable the plaintiff to obtain the relief lie seeks.
Brownsford v. Edwards, 2 Fes. 246; Hawtry v. Trollop, Nelson, 119;
Wood v. Strickland, 2 Ves. & Bea. 158; Sanders v. King, 6 Mad.
63; Thriny v. Edgar, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 457; Mitf. Plea. 302.
And so too, where a bill has been taken pro vonfemo, the necessary
discovery required of the defendant may be supplied by proofs
taken for that purpose, according to the ancient English mode;
Johnson v. Desimineere, I Vern. 223; or upon interrogatories pro-
pounded to the plaintiff', or upon his affidavit, or by proofs taken
in the manner prescribed by the before mentioned Acts of Assem-
bly. If, however, the plaintiff's bill so exactly and perspicuously
sets forth the facts and circumstances of his case, as to lay a com-
plete foundation for the relief he asks, on its being wholly taken
for true, there can be no occasion for enforcing an answer in any
form, from the defendant; since his tacit admission of the truth of
all the allegations of the bill, as they stand, will be amply sufficient
to enable the Court to do full justice to the plaintiff.

It is a general rule, that wherever a defendant submits to an
answer, he must answer as fully as the bill requires. Salmon \.
Clagett, post. If he puts in an answer, to which the plaintiff ex-
cepts, and the exceptions are sustained, the defendant must put
in a better answer by the time appointed for his so doing. The
order by which his answer is declared to be insufficient, places him
exactly in the situation in which he stood: immediately before bis
insufficient answer was tiled; and makes him again liable to any
proceeding which might, at that time, have been had against him;
so that, where an answer has been adjudged, on exceptions, to be
insufficient, and the defendant has not, as ordered, tiled a sufficient
answer by the appointed day, the plaintiff may, according to the
principles of the English practice; again take up and continue his
process of contempt, just where he had left off when the insuffi-
cient answer was tiled; or as at that time, if he were, so entitled,
have his bill taken pro co»/mo, and obtain a decree thereon accord-
ingly. Recollecting * however, that when the defendant sub-
mits to answer the exceptions; or the answer upon excep- '*«"
tions, is held to be insufficient, and the defendant answers accord-
ingly, the plaintiff can take no other or new exceptions, but must
have the sufficiency of the whole of such answers again put to the
test upon the original exceptions. Dupont v. Ward, 1 Did-. 133;
Turner v. Turner, 1 Dick. 316; Gregor v. Anmdcl, 8 Yes. 88; Part-
ridge v. Hayeraft, 11 Fes. 575; Williams v. Dames, 1 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 217; Over v. LeigUon, 1 Cond. Clia. Rep. 433; Hodgson v.
Butter field, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 434; 1 Harr. Pra. Cha. 321.

An insufficient answer must of necessity, be regarded as no
answer; since it would be unjust or ruinous," to compel a plaintiff