WORTHINGTON v. LEE.—2 BLAND. 645

equitable interest of Robert Lee in the said land was sold for the
sum of $105, to the defendant Jesse Lee, of which sum, after pay-
ing therefrom the legal expenses, commissions, and costs, $68.43
only were paid in part discharge of the debt. Since which time
Bobert Lee died; but that no letters testamentary or of adminis-
tration on his personal estate had been granted to any one; that he
left the defendant Temperance Lee his widow, and the defendants
Thomas, Joshua, John, William, Caleb, Jesse, Clarissa, Matilda,
Penelope and Mary, his children, and the defendants Eleanor and
Ushley, the children of his son Bobert Lee, Jr., deceased, his
heirs-at-law; and that there is due and unpaid to the plaintiff of
the mortgage debt the sum of $800, including interest. Where-
upon the bill prayed; that the mortgaged estate might be sold;
and that the plaintiff might have such other and further relief as
should appear to be consistent with equity and good conscience.

On the 14th of April, 1830, the defendants Faner and wife, and
Joshua Lee demurred to this bill; and for cause shewed, that it
appeared by the complainant's own shewing, that the equitable
interest of the said Robert Lee has been sold under an execution,
levied at her instance; and, consequently, that they or either of
the heirs of the said Bobert were not the proper parties to be made
defendants.

The defendants Houck and wife, on the 10th of August, 1830,
also demurred to the bill; and for cause sbewed, that, by the com-
plainant's own statement, it appeared that both the legal and
equitable interest in the land alluded to in the bill had been parted
with by Bobert Lee and his heirs; and that he, or they, or his rep-
resentatives were no longer any way concerned with regard to
their disposal; and that these defendants were only complained of
as the heirs of the said Bobert Lee.

BLAND, C., 29th October, 1830.—This case standing ready
for hearing on the demurrers of Faner and others, and the solici-
tors of the parties having been fully heard, the proceedings were
read and considered.

* These defendants, by this form of defence, put it to the
Court to determine, admitting every fact and circumstance 680
to be true, as stated, whether they ought to be compelled to an-
swer the bill or not. The cause shewn for thus demurring, would
seem to amount to a disclaimer; but a disclaimer is never made in
this way; or received in this equivocal shape. It should be, in all
respects, full and explicit, and accompanied by an answer denying
such facts as it may be necessary to deny, in order to make it
effectual; because, in all such cases, where the defendant is subject
to no liability, which he cannot disclaim, Glassington v. Thwaites,
3 Cond. Cha. Rep. 197. it at once puts an end to the case, without
asking for the judgment of the Court, as by a demurrer, upon the