HANNAH £. CHASES CASE.

the late Samuel Chase leased this property to Basil Williamson,
who had the possession thereof when this bill was filed. The
plaintiff claims one-third of this property as her d®wer; and she
also claims a remuneration for the rents and profits of her third
part from the death of her husband; and thereupon prays, that
dower may be assigned to her; that the property may be sold for
the payment of the rents and profits due to her; or that the future
accruing rents to which the defendants are entitled, may be seques-
tered or placed in the hands of a receiver to be paid over to her
until she is satisfied; and generally, that she may have such relief
as is suited to the nature of her case.

The defendants Barney and wife, and Cole and wife, submit the
case to the justice of the court. The defendant Williamson
declares, that he is totally ignorant of the plaintiff's pretensions;
and, therefore, leaves her to sustain them; but admits, that he
holds as tenant under some of the other defendants. The defend-
ant Richard M. Chase disclaims all interest in the matter in con-
troversy. And Hester-Ann, Matilda, and Frances T. Chase, the
three infant children of the late Thomas Chase, who have been
made defendants as heirs of their father, who was a defendant and
died after he had answered, state their ignorance of the whole
affair, and pray to have their interests protected. But, their father
does not seem to have had any interest in this property, which
could have been affected by the plaintiff's claim; or if he had,
it will be fully considered and disposed of in passing upon the
defence which he jointly made, before his death, with three
others of his co-defendants. Consequently, all these defendants
may be safely passed by without any further notice, and the
case may be at once disencumbered of every thing in relation to
them.

The defendants Samuel Chase, Matilda Ridgely, and Ann Chase,
have put in a joint and several plea and answer. They alone claim
the property, called the Fountain Inn. They contest the plaintiff's
claim altogether and in every shape. The whole opposition and
the entire brunt of the controversy rest with them. They have
couched their defence in the form of a plea and answer. The mat-
ter of their plea is extended over a wide surface in the foreground;
and sets out all that mass of particulars of which their defence is
composed. The matter of this plea amounts to this, that the plain-
tiff filed a bill against them on the 5th of July, 1813, and another
on the 14th of February, 1814, in both of which she claimed dower