NEALE v. HAGTHROP.— 3 BLAND. 555

forth, he answered and said, that he had no other knowledge of
them than what he had obtained confidentially as counsel; and,
therefore, declined answering further; this answer was deemed
sufficient. And, again, a defendant answered as to part, and as
to the residue relied upon the Statute of Limitations; this answer
also was held to be sufficient. In such cases, a part of the answer
performs the office of a plea: and the defendant thus makes de-
fence to the whole case by a disclosure of all the facts so far as he
is bound so to respond; and for the residue, by presenting such an
equitable bar to the plaintiffs claim as is a sufficient excuse for
not answering in the manner required by the bill. The exact
compass of this modification of the rule, that if a defendant sub-
mits to answer at all, he must answer fully, remains yet to be ad-
justed. Much has been said upon the subject; but. as the cases
in relation to this "distracted point," as it has been called, have
no bearing upon the case now under consideration, they have been
thus generally noticed merely to prevent misapprehension. 2 Mad.
Chan. Pra. 339; Salmon v. Clagett, ante, 142.

A fourth general rule, is one which grows out of the third rule,
that exacts a full answer: and requires to be attentively considered
in this case; it is, that where the defendant fails to answer any
part of the material allegations of the bill, such unanswered alle-
gations shall, at the hearing, be taken to be true. Thus, where
the bill demands the delivery of two pieces of property, and the
answer makes defence as to one, but is totally silent as to the
other. In such case, according to this rule, the bill may be taken
pro confesso for that as to which the answer is silent; and the
plaintiff may obtain a decree accordingly. Brown v. Pittman,
Gibb. Eq. Rep. 75; Abergavenny v. Abergavenny, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr.
179.

The propriety of this rule has, however, been questioned; and,
therefore, it stands in need of all the support it can derive from
authority, reason and analogy.

If, upon exceptions, the answer is held to be insufficient, the
defendant will be ordered to answer more fully; and if he fails to
do so, in England, sequestration will go against his estate. The
plaintiff need not, however, stop there, bat may proceed to have
his whole bill taken pro confesso; for the Court is in the habit of
* considering an insufficient answer as no answer. Dan's
v. Davis, 2 Atk. 21; Attorney-General v. Young, 3 Ves. 209; 570
Bishton v. Birch, 1 Ves. & B. 307; Edwards v. McLeary, 2 Ves. &
B. 258. In this State, obedience to an order directing a more
perfect answer, upon exceptions being sustained, is usually en-
forced by attachment; but, as in England, on the defendant's failing .
to answer as ordered, and the process of attachment failing to coerce
an answer, as required, the whole bill may be taken pro confesso.