360 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

The bill then charges, "that after the death of the said West,
the said trustees, appointed Nathaniel Williams, Esq., (the de-
fendant,) their agent, who afterwards, on the death of said trus-
tees, was, by a decree of Baltimore County Court, passed on
the petition of Luke Tiernan and others, stating themselves to
be creditors of said James West, duly appointed trustee for the
estate, with the same powers which by the deed of trust afore-
said, were vested in the original trustees." And it appears by
a copy of the decree of Baltimore County Court, that the de-
fendant was appointed trustee on the 21st of September, 1836.

The bill, after some averments, not necessary to be noticed,
states, that the complainants had received from the defendant,
from time to time, several sums of money, amounting in the
aggregate to about the principal of the said sum of $9,900, but
that they had received nothing on account of interest, and that
a large balance still remains due them for interest, which the
defendant refuses to pay. It is chiefly to recover this balance
that the present bill is filed; and to that end, after the forego-
ing statement, the defendant is called upon to give a detailed ac-
count of the business of the trust, showing the amounts received
by him, and the payments made from the trust fund, and par-
ticularly the sums paid to the complainants; and stating the
times of the receipts and payments, and the accounts on which
they were paid; and also full and perfect answer make to the
premises, &c.

The answer to the exceptions is admitted to be satisfactory
and full with regard to the transactions of the defendant as trus-
tee; but it is said that it does not give. an account of, or any
information in reference to the proceedings of the defendant
whilst he acted in the capacity of agent of the first trustees.
And the rule is insisted upon, that a respondent submitting to
answer, must answer fully; and there can be no doubt that such
is the rule. Warfield vs. Gambril, 1 G. & J., 503; Salmon vs.
Clagett, 3 Bland, 125.

If the answer is not explicit, the defendant may be pressed by
exceptions till it is so, but exceptions to an answer for insuf-
ficency can only be sustained where some material allegation,