SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 181

is responsive to the case stated by the bill on which the
* injunction was granted, and no further. And the con-
fidence it had reposed in the bill will not be shaken, unless 165
it is fully answered, and its truth, is, in point of fact, materially
denied.

An answer should always be sworn to by the respondent; for it
is only the answer of him who swears to it, although it may pur-
port to be the answer of others. The statement or denial of facts
within the defendant's own knowledge should be made distinctly
and positively; or, at least, as much so as his recollection will
admit. But if the defendant be charged in a representative charac-
ter, such as that of an executor, he may answer on his belief, and
shew such pregnant circumstances as the foundation of that belief
as to induce the Court to adopt and act upon it. Jones v. Magill. 1
Bland, 177.

It is 110 objection to the validity and efficacy of an answer, in
this respect, that the defendant is infamous, or a negro; and, as
such, an incompetent witness in ordinary cases; his answer must,
notwithstanding, have full credit allowed to it; since the plaintiff,
by calling him into Court, has given him a competency to this
extent for the purpose of defending himself and protecting his

October 1st, 1790. principal sum due......... ........,......£277 10s. 7 3/4d.

May 1st. 1796. Date of judgment, interest thereon
of 10 per cent .................................... .............. 154 19s. 0 1/4d.

Total........... ........... ......£432 9s. 8 d.

October 1st, 1796, interest of six per cent. ........ ...... 10 16s. 3 d.

£443 5s. 11 d.
By cash....................... ........ ......... ...................... 112 10s. 0 d.

£330 15s. 11 d.

N. B.—This case was submitted for final decision on the bill, answer and
exhibits. So that, in fact, no defence against Williams' claim has been
made. And the answer, according to the established principles of this
Court, is to be taken for truth; and the allegations of the bill on oath, al-
though sufficient for obtaining the injunction, in the first instance, avail
nothing on final hearing. The Chancellor makes this remark for the satis-
faction of the complainant, who thought proper to send him a private letter
relative to the suit; and which letter could not, with propriety, have any
influence on the mind of the Chancellor; who, in all cases, is to decide from
the bill, answer, and proofs; and not from the bare allegations of the par-
ties. There is one remark which might have been properly made in the
decree. The answer states a debt due to Williams, on his private account,
as well as the debt due to the trustees; and it does not appear, that Mrs.
Howard directed the application of her payment to be made to the latter
debt. It does not then appear, that Williams did otherwise than right in
making the application to his own claim, as any other man might honestly
have done in his case.—MS.