572 NEALE v. HAGTHROP.—3 BLAND.

lot, the one on the 9th of August, 1810, and the other on the 17th
of June, 1815; and that he purchased a fourth parcel of it on the
17th of September, 1811, of Gerard Tipton, for all which he avers
he paid a valuable consideration; and that he had no notice of the
claim of Anthony Hook's representatives. This answer is also
entirely unsupported by any evidence whatever; and therefore,
this defendant will be decreed to deliver up, and reconvey to the
plaintiff so much of the ten acre lot, mentioned in the bill, as he
holds; and will also be held accountable for the rents and profits
thereof from the dates when he obtained possession of each parcel
respectively. The nature of the just allowances to which he may
be entitled will be described.

Benjamin Rawliugs, surviving executor of the late William
Rawlings, states, that his co executrix Catharine Rawlings, who
had been made a defendant, is dead, that he is in possession of
part of the ten acre lot, in the bill mentioned, by virtue of a deed
bearing date on the 10th of September, 1804. This answer is
also entirely unsupported by proof. This defendant will be de-
creed to deliver up and reconvey the property so held by him to
the plaintiff'; and be charged with the rents and profits, as execu-
tor, from the date of the deed under which his testator obtained
possession, with such just allowances as shall be specified.

*The defendant Matthew Bennett, in his answer, says,
589 that he is in possession of a part of the ten acre lot, men-
tioned in the bill, which he holds under a conveyance from Hag-
throp and wife, dated on the 3d of August, 1810. But this defend-
ant too has left his answer entirely destitute of proof. The bill
expressly alleges, that Hagthrop and wife, by deed dated on the
23d of December, 1819, leased a part of the lot on Alice Anna
street to Matthew Bennett. In relation to which this defendant
says nothing in his answer, this allegation of the bill, as against
him, must therefore be taken for true. He will be decreed to de-
liver up and reconvey all the property held by him to the plain-
tiff; and to account for the rents and profits of each parcel from
the time he took possession.

The defendant Nathaniel Chittenden, admits, that he holds pos-
session of a part of the lot on Alice Anna street, to which he de-
rives title through various mesne conveyances, from the late John
Hook. He avers, that he, and those under whom he claims, were,
all of them, purchasers for a valuable consideration without notice;
but produces no proof in support of these allegations of his answer.
He, therefore, will, in like manner, be decreed to deliver up and
reconvey the property so held by him to the plaintiff, and be held
accountable also for the rents and profits.

The defendant James Hook, on the 7tb of February, 1823, filed
his answer, as he says therein, to the amended bill of the com-
plainant; but there does not appear to have been any amended