564 BROWN v. WALLACE.—2 BLAND.

William Mitchell, deceased, by his petition, not on oath, stated,
that he was very much interested in the sum of money which was
the subject of controversy; a large proportion of which was to be
paid to him, when collected, by the said Wallace, who was a mere
trustee; and therefore, prayed to be allowed to come in, answer,
&c. Upon which, it was, on the 20th of August, 1824, by ARCHER,
C. J. Ordered, that the petitioner be permitted to appear, answer,
and defend, as prayed. Under this leave, on the 25th of October,
1824, Kent Mitcbell filed his answer, iu which he set forth and re-
lied upon various facts and circumstances, which had been before
in substance stated and relied on by the defendant Wallace. After
which, this defendant Kent Mitchell, without oath, or stating any
reasons, merely prayed for leave to amend his answer. Upon
which it was, on the 6th of November, 1824, by ARCHER,. C. J.
Ordered, that leave be given to amend the answer, as prayed.
Under which leave, this defendant, on the 5th of March, 1825, put
in an amended answer, setting forth some few additional facts, but
none having any material bearing upon the questions afterwards
submitted for determination.

The second of the cases of Brown against Wallace, was also
commenced in Harford County Court, by a bill filed on the 5th of
March, 1825, by Freeborn Brown and William Brown, against
James Wallace. This bill stated the same facts and circumstances
as in the first bill, and alleged, that the trustee Wallace, was
wholly unable to make a good valid title to Freeborn Brown, for
the land so purchased by him. Whereupon it was prayed, that
the said contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, respect-
ing the property in the proceedings mentioned, might be set aside,
vacated, cancelled, &c. To this second bill, the defendant
Wallace, put in an answer, substantially similar to that which he
had made to the first bill.

After hearing the motion to dissolve the injunction, the matter
was considered, and the motion was overruled. On the 13th of
March, 1826, Freeborn Brown's death was suggested; and Mary
B. Brown, his executrix and devisee, was admitted as a plaintiff
in his stead. These cases were then removed to this Court, under
the Act of 1824, ch. 196, and the proceedings all filed here on the
8th of May, 1827. After which, on application, a survey was
ordered, made, and plots rerurned; testimony was taken and
* brought in; and some other proceedings were had; any
594 particular account of which is, however, deemed unneces-
sary. Upon all which, these several cases were together brought
before the Court.

BLAND, C., 5th July, 1830.—The parties having agreed, that
these two cases should be heard together and consolidated; and
there being a convenience in having them so associated; and as it