520 HALL v. McPHERSON.—3 BLAND.

made against him as surviving partner; that, since the death of
the plaintiff's intestate, this defendant had disposed of apart of
the joint effects in the best possible manner, and applied the pro-
ceeds in satisfaction of the claims against them. That he had in
all things done his best to preserve the interests of the two part-
nerships; and the plaintiff's allegations, that he had put those in-
terests at hazard, and had no other property, were false. That
this defendant was never requested by the plaintiff to furnish him
with a statement of the transactions of the firms; on the con-
trary, the plaintiff had always had free access to the books of the
concerns, and the defendant had always been ready and willing to
give any information on the subject within his power; that an
inventory of the goods on hand bad been taken a short time be-
fore the death of the plaintiff's intestate, and the amount
531 * particularly ascertained; that the estate of the plaintiff's
intestate would be inadequate to pay his debts, and this defend-
ant would be seriously injured in consequence thereof; and that
this defendant has not been able to ascertain the aggregate of the
debts against the two firms, &c.

BLAND, C., 26th April, 1826.—The defendant's solicitor called
upon the Chancellor at his office, and asked lea\ e to lodge with
him an answer to a bill which, he said, would soon be laid before
him. In a few hours after the bill was accordingly presented.
The Chancellor apprised the plaintiff's solicitor of these circum-
stances; and, after hearing his remarks, has read and considered
the bill and answer.

It often occurs, in cases where the suit has been amicably insti-
tuted, that the bill and answer are filed together, and that some
order is passed thereon at once. But this is not said to be, nor
does it, in any respect, wear the aspect of an amicable call for the
aid, or sanction of the Court, to have that done on a statement of
facts about which the parties are agreed, or which they are willing
should be done. The parties here are substantially opposed as to
every object of this suit; and they apprised the Chancellor, that
they were so before he read either the bill or answer.

The prompt manner in which the defendant has chosen to come
in and answer is unusual; perhaps, indeed, such an instance never
happened before. But I am not aware of any practice of this
Court, or, of any principle, governing the administration of jus-
tice, which prohibits a defendant from answering instantly to any
complaint that may be made against him. On the contrary, Courts
of justice, whether of common law or of equity, not only allow a
party to come in and immediately defend himself; but consider a
promptness in doing so as highly commendable. The various
formalities, intervals, and pauses of the process, warning, sum-
moning, or coercing a defendant to appear and answer, are in-