488 ESTEP v. WATKINS.

the interests of their intestate, either by him or by the
complainant. These defendants further aver, that long subsequent
to the passage of the decree aforesaid, their intestate, wishing to close
this transaction relative to the bond aforesaid, brought suit against
the complainant; that the complainant, aware of the understanding,
previously here stated, and of his liability to their intestate, gave
their intestate a judgment for the amount then due on the bond on
his allowing all the credits which the complainant was then entitled
to. These defendants also state, that at the April term of Ann Arun-
del county court, their intestate, in order to recover the balance
then due on the aforesaid bond, instituted proceedings to revive the
judgment aforesaid against the complainant; and that in conse-
quence of the death of their intestate pending the proceedings afore-
said, these defendants appeared to the said suit, after which such
proceedings were had, that at the October term of the said court
for 1827, a judgment was obtained against the complainant in
favour of the defendants for the amount then ascertained to be due.
These defendants do positively deny that their intestate in receiving
the sums of money in part payment of the bond aforesaid, ever did
receive the same as a satisfaction thereof, or ever did admit that the
bond was paid; but on the contrary always considered the com-
plainant liable to him for the amount of the last aforesaid judg-
ment; and that the complainant himself ever did, until a short time
before the judgment aforesaid was about to be revived, consider
himself, as these defendants believe, so liable to their intestate."

Upon a motion to dissolve the injunction on the coming in of
these answers, it was continued until the final hearing or further
order. After which the case was set down for final hearing by the
plaintiff on the bill and answers; and the solicitors of the parties
were fully heard.

6th August, 1828.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case having been
set down for hearing on the bill and answers alone, without any
general replication,—the answers must therefore be taken to be true
in every particular, as well as to the matters alleged by way of
avoidance as to those directly responsive to the bill. That is, the
defendants are to be allowed the benefit of every fact advanced by
them as a defence in their answers, as fully as if it had been put in
issue by the plaintiff's general replication, and the defendants had
established it by proof.(a)

(a) 3 Blac. Com. 448.