406 McKIM v. ODOM.—3 BLAND.

which had been filed, having been thus withdrawn, the case was
accordingly submitted for hearing on bill and answer.

BLAND, C., 14th April, 1828.—This case having been set down
for hearing by the plaintiffs upon the bill and answers thereto
alone; and having been submitted on their part without argument;
and the solicitors of the defendants having on the 28th of March
last filed a note in which they say, that " the counsel for the
defendants having understood that this case is set down for hear-
ing at the present, term; and that the object of complainants is to
obtain against the defendant Law a decree to account. They,
therefore, respectfully submit to the Chancellor, whether the com-
plainants are entitled to any such decree; no such relief having
been prayed in the bill, and no foundation having been laid for the
same. Upon which the proceedings were read and considered.

One of the plaintiffs, McKim, as assignee of his co-plaiutiff
Moore, claims the one-half of the schooner Beauty, as tenant in
common with the defendant John Odom. The plaintiffs complain
that the defendants Law, Harrison, and Odom, have refused to
account with them for the proceeds of this vessel, which has been
sold, and her earnings. And by their bill pray, that one-half of
those proceeds and earnings may be delivered over to them, or that
they may have such other relief as is best adapted to the nature of
their case.

When a case is set down for hearing, as this has been, on the
bi!l and answers alone, every thing contained in the answers, in-
cluding the exhibits which constitute a part of them, being prayed
to be made so, are necessarily admitted by the plaintiff to be true
in every particular, so far as it may be at all pertinent and applica-
ble to the case set forth in the bill; because, if the plaintiff does
not contest the answer by putting in a replication to it, he thereby
admits it to be true; and even if he should have put in a replica-
tion; yet, if he afterwards, without laying the defendant under a
rule to proceed, brings the case to be heard on bill and answer,
*the answer must, in like manner, be taken to be true in all
410 points; because the opportunity which the defendant had of
proving his answer, is thereby as effectually taken from him as if
no replication had been filed. Beam's Orders, 29, 180; Forum Bom,
45; Grosvenor v. Cartwright, 2 Cos. Chaw. 21; Barker v. Wyld, 1
Vern. 140; Wrottesley v. Bendish, 3 P. Will. 237, note; Legard v.
Sheffied, 2 Atk. 377; Paul v. Nixon, 1 Bland, 201, note; Estep v.
Watkins, 1 Bland, 488; Wright v. Nutt, 3 Bro. C. C. 340.

It is also an established rule, that when any one of two or more
defendants makes out a defence which goes to the whole case, as
regards himself, at least, the bill must be dismissed; and where a
complete bar as to the whole case is thus established by any one
defendant; and there can be no relief granted against any one de-