JONES v. MAGILL.

and alleged party to the fraud, (n) The loan of the $500 was made
by the defendant Gittings; the note for it, on which the judgment
at law was obtained, was given to him; and it is admitted, that he,
as having been privy to the whole transaction, is able to speak of
the facts from his own knowledge; and, therefore, it is important
that he should answer, as well because he is disinterested, having
settled his final account and been discharged as guardian, as because
Magill, who claims under him, will be bound by his answer.(o)

It is true, that a defendant has no direct means of enforcing
an answer to the bill from his co-defendant; but, he may urge
forward the plaintiff to do his duty in that particular; and, certainly,
at the instance of a defendant anxious to have the restriction of an
injunction removed, the court would suffer no unreasonable delay
from the plaintiff. A responding defendant may lay the plaintiff
under a rule further proceedings, which the court will not hesitate
to enforce so as to compel him to extract an answer from a tardy
co-defendant with as little delay as possible; or else the bill may
be dismissed and the injunction dissolved;(p) for, in equity as at

peace. Upon these answers the defendants gave notice of a motion to dissolve; and
on the 7th July, 1807, the injunction was thereupon dissolved. • .

(») Bridgman v. Green, 2 Ves. 629.

(o) Osborn v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 832; Field v. Holland, 6 Gran. 24.

(p) Anonymous, 9 Ves. 512; Depeyster v. Graves, 2 John. Ch. Ca. 148.

TONG v. OLIVER.—This bill was filed on the 22d of October, 1803, by William
Tong against Richard Oliver, and also Robert Berry and Peter Snyder, administrators
of Benjamin Abbot. It states, that the plaintiff, in the year 1798, purchased of the
intestate a tract of land in Pennsylvania; that he paid part of the purchase money,
gave his bond for .£300, being the balance, and obtained possession of the land; that
Abbot gave an order on this plaintiff in favour of the defendant Oliver, for the whole
sum due on the bond; that on presentation of the order, the plaintiff paid £200, and
executed his bond for the remaining £ 100 to, and in the name of the defendant
Oliver; that the land was subject to an incumbrance for £32 at the time of the sale,
which the plaintiff would be compelled to pay and satisfy; and yet, that suit had
been brought on the bond, judgment obtained, and an execution levied on the plain-
tiff's lands; that Abbot is since dead, and the defendants Berry and Snyder were
his administrators; upon which an injunction was prayed for and granted to stay
the proceedings at law.

On the 19th May, 1808, the defendants Berry and Snyder put in their joint answer;
the purport of which is sufficiently noticed in the Chancellor's order. On the same
day, the defendant Oliver not having answered, they obtained the usual order to give
notice of a motion to shew cause why the injunction should not be dissolved at the
next term.

Isl March, 1809.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The motion for dissolving the injunction
was made by the defendants' counsel, no counsel for the complainant being in court.
But as, according to the rule and practice of the court, the defendants would
have been entitled to a dissolution, if the answers were considered sufficient, it is