8 WALSH v. SMYTH.—3 BLAND.

In this case some of the defendants have answered and others
have failed to answer after publication; and all the allegations of
the bill which would, if admitted or established, entitle the plain-
tiffs to the relief they ask, have been denied by the answers of the
responding defendants, and have not been sustained by the proofs;
therefore, as to them, that consideration which is common to all
the bonds remains valid and unimpeached. But the same consid-
eration cannot be deemed valid in favor of one as to the whole
purchase money, and utterly invalid as regards another claimant,
who rests his pretensions altogether upon the same consideration.
Hence, as this consideration has been sustained by the responding
defendants, it must be deemed valid as to all, although the bill
might, in other respects, have been taken pro confesso, as against
those who have not answered, and therefore the plaintiffs can ob-
tain relief against none of these defendants. Lingan v. Henderson.
1 Bland, 236. (c)

* Whereupon it is decreed, that the injunction heretofore
granted in this case, be, and the same is hereby dissolved.
And it is further decreed, that the said bill of complaint, be, and ,
the same is hereby dismissed with costs, to be taxed by the
register.

John Glenn, as administrator de bonis non of Stephen Casenave,
deceased, by his petition filed on the 24th of September, 1830, on
oath, stated, that Stephen Casenave, one of the plaintiff's, died and
administration of his personal estate was granted by the Orphans'
Court of Baltimore, to James Walker, who died sometime about
the year 1810; thai at October Term, 1798, the death of Stephen
Casenave was suggested, and entered upon the docket, which entry

(c) DORSEY v. DORSEY.—The bill stated, that Edward Dorsey had given his
bond to Ely Dorsey for the payment of £43 15s. Id.; that the bond was lost;
that the claim had been assigned to the plaintiff; that the obligor was dead;
that his personal estate had been exhausted in the payment of his debts; and
that he had devised his real estate to the defendants, in whose hands the bill
prayed that the real assets might be charged with the payment of his debts.
Some of she heirs answered, as to all of whom, upon the hearing, the bill
was dismissed.

HANSON, C., 22d January, 1800.—As to the defendant Deborah Dorsey,
executrix of Edward Dorsey, who has been regularly summoned, and stood
out the process of attachment, and attachment with proclamations, and
failed to appear and answer agreeably to law, the Chancellor is by law to
take, and the bill is hereby taken pro confesso. And this case shews plainly
the impropriety of directing the Chancellor absolutely to take any bill pro
confesso. But inasmuch as the bill states, that the personal estate of the
testator is exhausted, it does not appear,' that the complainant can have any
benefit from the said taking; and the Chancellor being authorized to decree
what appears just; (1785, ch. 72, s. 19.) It is Decreed, that the bill as to
Deborah Dorsey be, and the same is hereby dismissed, &c.