NEALE v. HAGTHROP.—3 BLAND. 539

The answer of a defendant is taken for true so far as it is responsive to the
bill, unless disproved, (d)

Its allegations of fact not responsive, but in avoidance must be proved.

If a defendant submits to answer at all, he must answer fully and particu-
larly.

Any material allegation left unanswered may, at the hearing, be taken for
true, (e)

Where a defendant declares, that he is entirely ignorant of the matters
stated in the bill and leaves the defendant to make out his case, or in
words to that effect, and the plaintiff replies, the allegations of the bill
are thus put in issue and must be proved. (f)

A deed by which a father conveyed all his personal estate to his son, upon
condition, that the son should pay certain specified debts due by the
father, held to give rise to a resulting trust in favor of the father, so as
to require the son to shew, that the specified debts of the father had
been paid: and to give the representative of the father a right to relief
and an account. (g)

A purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice will not be dis-
turbed, (h)

What is notice?

Where a bill prays relief against several on the ground, that the deed under
which they all claim is fraudulent, and one dies, the suit abates as to
all. (i)

THIS bill was filed on the loth of December, 1820, by James
Neale, administrator de boms non of Anthony Hook, deceased,
against Edward Hagthrop and Barbara his wife, administratrix of
*John Hook, deceased, William McMechen, John Cator,
John S. King, John Weaver, Samuel Moore, George A. 552
Hughes, John Fitzgerald, Catharine Rawlings and Benjamin Raw-
lings, executors of William Eawlings, Matthew Bennett and Na-
thaniel Chittenden.

The bill states, that the plaintiff, on the 5th of April, 1820, took
out letters of administration de bonis non upon the estate of the
late Anthony Hook, which had been left unadrninistered by Mary
Hook, deceased, the former administratrix; and that the intestate
Anthony Hook being the owner, and in possession in his life-time
of certain chattels real, and personal property, conveyed the whole
to his son John Hook, by the following indenture:

(d) Cited in Carpenter v. Ins. Co. 4 Howard, 218. See Hopkins v. Stump,
2 H. & J. 301; Ing v. Brown, 3 Md. Ch. 521.

(e) See Hopkins v. Stump, 2 H. & J. 301, note.

(f) See Drury v. Conner, 6 H. & J. 388, note (6); Pennington v. Gittings, 2
G. & J. 208, note (a.)

(g) Reversed in Hagthorp v. Neale, 7 G. & J. 13.
(h) See Alexander v. Ghiselin, 5 Gill, 138, note.
(i) See Swan v. Dent, 2 Md. Ch. 111, note.