MAYER v. TYSON. 559

MAYER v. TYSON. -

An answer held, on exceptions, to be insufficient, is as no answer.

If a defendant does not, after exceptions, put in a sufficient answer, as ordered, the
bill may be taken pro confesso and a final decree passed; or the case may be prose-
cuted, as against the other defendants, to a final decree.

Under what circumstances, and at what stage of the case the plaintiff may be
required to give security for costs.

This bill was filed on the 10th of December 1827, by Lewis
Mayer and Isaac Lohman, of the city of Philadelphia, partners
trading under the firm of Mayer & Lohman, against Thomas Tyson,
Richard H. Douglas, Christian Keller, Isaac Tyson jun'r, Nathan
Tyson, Benjamin P. Moore, John Glenn, and Joaquim de Mier.

The bill states, that the defendant Thomas Tyson had purchased
of the plaintiffs a large quantity of rum and brandy, for which there
was then due a balance of $1425 54; that the defendant Thomas,
being in an insolvent condition, had by a deed assigned all his pro-
perty to the defendants, Richard, Christian, Isaac, Nathan, and
Benjamin, in trust for the benefit of such of his creditors as should
release their respective claims within a certain time; that these
plaintiffs had not so released their claim; that the defendant Tho-
mas had applied for and obtained the benefit of the insolvent law,
under which the defendant John had been appointed his trustee;
that the rum and brandy purchased by the defendant Thomas of
these plaintiffs was in fact bought by him merely as the agent of
the defendant Joaquim, who was in truth the real debtor to the
plaintiffs; that the defendants who were the trustees of the defend-
ant Thomas had brought suit against the defendant Joaquim to
recover the amount due from him for the rum and brandy so pur-
chased, with a view to have it applied, according to their trusts, in
satisfaction of the creditors of the defendant Thomas. Whereupon
the plaintiffs prayed, that, as the debt due from the defendant
Joaquim, to the amount due to them, was properly owing to them,
they might be first satisfied, &c.

All the defendants answered jointly or separately, except Joa-
quim, who being a nonresident, publication was made, warning
him to appear, &c. To the answer of the defendant Thomas the
plaintiffs filed exceptions; because of its being, as they alleged,
insufficient in several specified particulars. Upon which it was
ordered, that those exceptions stand for hearing on the 15th of