ESTEP v. WATKINS.

on the bond so given by this plaintiff; and, in September 1817
recovered judgment for the whole amount thereof; that this plains
tiff paid to Nicholas Watkins the full amount due to him,
deducting the two-thirteenths awarded to Claytor and wife, which
he also paid according to the terms of the decree; that Nicholas
Watkins is dead intestate, and administration on his estate had
been granted to these defendants Rachel H. Watkins and Benjamin
Watkins, who have revived the judgment recovered by their
intestate, to be released on the payment of $892 75 with interest
from the 2d of October 1827 and costs; upon which they threat-
ened to issue execution. Whereupon the plaintiff prayed for an
injunction to stay proceedings at law, &c.; which was granted as
prayed.

. The defendant Claytor by his answer admitted the allegations
and facts set forth in the bill so far as he was concerned.

The defendants Rachel H. Watkins and Benjamin Watkins put
in their joint answer, in which they also admitted the facts and cir-
cumstances set forth in the bill. But they averred, " that the said
bond was assigned to their intestate during the lifetime of the said
Charles D. Hodges; that their intestate paid the full amount due on
the bond at the time of the assignment to him; that he had no know-
ledge of any deduction to be made therefrom in any event whatever:
and these defendants do positively deny, that their intestate received
bonds or notes in payment of the aforesaid bond; but they aver,
that the bonds and notes which he did receive were received to be
applied when collected towards the payment of the said bond; and
that their intestate did, after due diligence in the collection of the
said bonds and notes, apply what had been so collected to the dimi-
nution of the amount due on the bond, and credit was therefore
given to the complainant. These defendants also aver, that the
complainant's bill, mentioned in his present bill, to which their intes-
tate was a defendant, was answered by him under a full belief and
with an understanding by him and the complainant, that the said suit
\ should not affect the interest of their intestate in the aforesaid bond,
and should only operate to enable the complainant to obtain a con-
veyance for the land he had purchased; that their intestate relying
on this understanding, and believing his interest was not to be
damnified, employed no counsel nor made any defence, but suffered
the counsel for the complainant to draw his answer, and the pro-
ceedings to be as hastily determined as possible; and that when
the decree was passed in the said case, it was not considered as at