NEALE v. HAGTHROP.—-3 BLAND. 569

against those claims. Such evidence, in addition to any thing
that might be said in the answer, is also necessary, because it con-
stitutes an affirmative part of that title set up by the representa-
tives of John Hook in opposition to the plaintiff's claim, and must
therefore be supported by indifferent testimony. All the claims
of the enumerated creditors, it is most likely, have been long since
barred by the Statute of Limitations; but, that is a protection
which the law itself gave to Anthony Hook; he is entitled, by the
terms of his deed, to be furnished by John Hook, with the evi-
dence of their having been satisfied, as the means of his protec-
tion in that form. This answer, therefore, is not for these reasons
also so responsive to the bill as to afford the defendants an ade-
quate defence. On adverting to the proofs and exhibits, it ap-
pears, that John Moale's is the only one of the specified claims,
that has been satisfied; and none other are to be allowed and
paid.

I lay out of this case the testimony of Henry Burman, who, as
the husband of one of the distributees of Anthony Hook, has an
interest in establishing the facts to which he testifies, and is there-
fore, an incompetent witness. All the other witnesses are compe-
tent. From the copy of the unexecuted bond, the declarations of
Bishop Carroll, and the other occurrences and proceedings in the
Orphans' Court, found among the proofs, it appears to have been
perfectly well understood between Anthony Hook and John Hook,
during their lives, that John held as the trustee of Anthony, ac-
cording to the terms of the deed. Mildmay v. Mildmay, 1 Vern.
53. And it appears, that the representatives of John Hook always
admitted, that they held under the deed; and yet, except the
claim of John Moale, it does not appear, that they ever undertook
to shew, that any of the claims of the enumerated creditors had
been satisfied. It lay upon John Hook and his representatives to
shew, that those claims were paid; they have not done so. And
the truth is, therefore, that, except Moale's claim, none of them
have been satisfied.

The answer of Hagthrop and wife, after some preliminary notices
of several allegations in the bill, and those responses as to the
payment of the enumerated debts, passes on to'a long history of
the sayings, actings and doings of sundry of the next of kin of the
late Anthony Hook, in relation to the ten acre lot; all of which
* for the reasons already assigned, it will be unnecessary to
say any thing further. The bill specially charges, that 586
Hagthrop and wife, by a deed dated on the 23d of December,
1819, leased or assigned a part of the lot on Alice Anna street, to
Matthew Bennett. Of this special allegation these defendants take
no notice; but say, that the late Anthony Hook, by an indenture
dated on the 8th of May, 1797, conveyed the lot on Alice Anna
street "to the late John Hook. This is an allegation in avoidance