WEST VS. WILLIAMS. 361

charge, or interrogatory in the bill, is not fully answered.
Blaidsell vs. Stephens, 16th Ves,, 179; Stafford vs. Brown, 4
Paige, 88. It is only where the allegations and interrogatories
of the bill are not fully answered, that the defendant can be
urged to a fuller response by exceptions.

The 4th exception in this case takes the ground that the de-
fendant was called upon by the allegations and interrogatories
of the bill to give a detailed account of the trust since it came
under his charge, either as agent or trustee, and the objection
now urged is, that he has not given such account as agent.

But upon examining the bill with some care, I do not find
that he is called upon by its allegations and interrogatories .to
give such account, as agent.

It is true, the fact of his having become, and having acted
as agent is alleged; but it is not averred that he received money
as agent; and in the interrogating part of the bill, the defend-
ant is called upon to give a particular and detailed account of
the business of the trusts, showing the amounts received, and
payments made from the trust funds. He is not required to
give such an account as agent, or trustee, as the exception as-
sumes; but simply an account of the business of the trust; and
there is nothing in the bill which negatives the idea that the
defendant had not settled his account as agent, with his prin-
cipals, the original trustees, as it was his duty to do. The court
must see, by referring to the bill alone, in connexion with the
exception, that the precise matters as to which a further answer
is sought, are stated in the bill, or that such an answer is called
for by the interrogatories. Such is the principle settled by the
case of Stafford vs. Brown, 4 Paige, 88, before referred to, in
which the authorities upon the point seem to have been carefully
examined; and such, in my opinion, should be the rule. A
plaintiff should not be allowed to except to an answer for in-
sufficiency when his own bill is inexplicit and ambiguous, and
it is consequently doubtful what information he seeks to obtain
from the defendant.

The representatives of the original trustees in this case are
not parties to the bill, and hence it might very fairly be inferred

VOL.1—31