182 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

property; Davis & Carter's Case, 2 Salic. 461; 8. C. 5 Mod. 74; Omy-
chund v. Barker, 1 Atk. 50; Wilson v. Polk, a free negro, 6 Novem-
ber, 1826, M&; 1717, ch; 13, s. 2; if it were otherwise, in all
eases, where a bill or answer is required, by the rules of the Court,
to be verified by an affidavit of the party himself, as he would be
incapable of complying with the rule, he would be denied the
benefit of justice, and, in effect, placed in a condition little better
than an outlaw. Bowyer v. McEvoy, 1 Ball & Bea. 562. Upon
similar principles, I have held, that where a corporation aggregate
alone was the defendant, its answer, under seal, was admitted and
credited as if made on oath; because it could not answer in any
other way; and the plaintiff by so calling for its answer, had
tacitly admitted its sufficiency; and because without its being
allowed all the effect of an answer on oath the corporation could
not protect its property. Bayard v. The Chesapeake & Delaware
Company, 18 October, 1828, MS. The facts stated in the bill, and
those responsive thereto, as set forth in the answer, are poised
against each other; and so far as they are contradictory, those of
the answer, being always allowed to preponderate, the injunction
is dissolved or continued accordingly. Gibson v. Tilton, 1 Bland,
355.

Carrying with us these principles and rules to the consideration

of the answers of these dei'endants, and it will be seen, that they

* are by no means such answers as can, upon any

grounds, entitle them to a dissolution of the injunction.

Whereupon, it is ordered, that the several exceptions to the

answers of the defendants be and they are hereby declared to be

valid; and the defendant and each of them are hereby required to

make and file a full and sufficient answer to the plaintiff 's bill of

complaint on or before the twentieth day of December next. And

it is further ordered, that the injunction heretofore granted, be

and the same is hereby continued until the final hearing or further

order.

The defendant Elizabeth Clagett filed a further answer, and the
plaintiff put in a general replication; and commissions were issued
to take testimony, which were returned, and the case set down for
final hearing. After which, on the 16th of June, 1830, the plain-
tiff by his petition, which, it was agreed, should be received as on
oath, stated, that by mistake, the depositions of two of his wit-
nesses had not been taken, that their testimony was material,
competent and proper; by which he expected to prove, that the
defendant Thomas Clagett was indebted to him in the sum of
$9,000, after giving him all due credits; and that the said sum
was secured by the mortgage by which Thomas Clagett and the
other defendants were bound; and he further stated, that the testi-
mony of those witnesses had not been taken, owing to a mistake