394 PRICE v. TYSON.—3 BLAND.

ferred to arbitration; and then adds, that he was fully under the
impression, that it had been finally settled or abandoned.

The defendant Moses answering for himself, says, that he sup-
poses from his intimacy with his intestate during his life-time,
that he was acquainted with the existence of a dispute between
him and the plaintiff's intestate, but he has no particular recollec-
tion of it; that he has no recollection of the reference of any dis-
pute between them to arbitration; and then he adds, that if he
had any knowledge of such dispute or reference, his belief now is,
that he considered it to have been finally settled in the life-time oi
said Tyson.

The defendants severally deny that they made or caused any in-
quiries to be made in relation to the claim of the plaintiff's intes
tate until after the 10th of October, 1821, when the distribution of
the surplus of their intestate's estate was made; and they aver,
that they did not. prior to that time, employ any one to inquire
into the situation of the plaintiff's suit. And to the whole of what
these defendants had said, by way of a joint and several answer,
they added, that from the time of granting letters of administra-
tion to them on the personal estate of the said Nathan Tyson, until
and after the time of making distribution of the said personal
estate herein before mentioned, they had no notice, information,
intimation, or recollection, that any action was pending in Har-
ford County Court, or elsewhere, against the said Nathan Tyson,
or against these defendants as the administrators of his estate, at
the suit of the said John Price or of the complainants.

Immediately after this answer was filed the plaintiff put in his
exceptions to it, alleging, that all those various matters which the
defendants had impertinently introduced into their answer, in ad-
dition to what he conceived were expressly called for by the bill,
were loreign from his inquiries, as well as the account exhibited
with the answer as a part of it; all of which he therefore prayed
might be expunged as being wholly irrelevant and impertinent.
And the plaintiff also objected, that what the defendant Mary had
said in relation to the agreement about the freight, was inadmis-
sible and improper; because the contract between the said Price
and Tyson for the freight of the said vessel, being in writing, and
397 * containing no such stipulation as the one referred to in
said answer, a lact well known to the said defendants.

BLAND, C., 11th July, 1831.—Ordered, that the foregoing excep
tions stand for hearing on the 22d day of the present month; pro-
vided, that a copy of this order, together with a copy of the said
exceptions, be served on the said defendants or their solicitor on or
before the 15th instant.

Copies having been served as required by this order, the case
was again brought before the Court.