HO YE v. PENN. 33

The appeal bond was given on account of Pigman, and a simi-
lar bond on account of Penn; but the payment was made on a
judgment on the appeal for Pigman, and the relief is prayed on
the ground of substitution for Gwinn.

The object of the bill was to affect the land conveyed by Penn ;
and also that conveyed by Waters to Evan Gaither, who was made
a defendant. And the prayer was, that the aforesaid defendants
might respectively pay, and contribute in satisfaction of the money
paid by the complainants, such sums as might be proper.

The defendant, Gaither, is since dead, and has devised the land in
question to the defendant, Waters; and his wife, Susanna Waters, the
sister of Gaither. Waters has not appeared; and an attachment,
renewed in April last, for his appearance, has been returned non est.

Before a decree can be made, some further proceeding is neces-
sary. Either, that Waters should, on application for amendment,
be struck out of the bill, if the complainant's counsel should think
it safe and advisable to make such an application; or, that he
should be compelled to appear; or the necessary orders be applied
for, and passed for taking the bill, as against him, pro confesso: and
also, that his wife, the other devisee, should be made a party in
order to have her interest in the land affected. After which the
decree should be for a sale of the interest of Waters and wife for
half of the debt; and Penn's for the other half, in the first instance;
but leaving each eventually liable for the whole.

On the 19th of September 1811, the plaintiffs filed a bill of revi-
vor, in which they stated, that Evan Gaither was dead, and by his
will had devised his interest in the property in dispute to Nathan
Waters and Susanna his wife; against whom the plaintiffs prayed
relief, a subpoena, &e.

24th March, 1812.—KILTY, Chancellor.—This case had been sub-
mitted on notes; but was considered by the Chancellor as not ready for
decision for the reasons stated in his order of September 18th, 1811.

Since that time process has issued against Nathan Waters and
Susanna his wife; and, such of the parties as appeared have been
heard by their counsel at the present term.

The Chancellor finds no reason to change the opinions, which
he had formed, and which were expressed, by him in his order
above referred to; and by his remarks in writing, dated the 1st of
May, and the 18th of September 1811; and will proceed to decree