KIPP v. HANNA, 29

mitted the conveyance of the property, to the use of herself and
her children, was made as set forth in the bill; but she averred,
that it was made in consideration of her fortune, amounting to
about $5000; that the house on the lot was erected with her
money so paid to her husband; that he was in good and solvent
circumstances at the time he made the conveyance; and she
denied all fraud, &c.

The infant defendants Mary John, and Robert answered by
their guardian ad litem, and admitted the execution of the convey-
ance by their father as set forth; but averred, that he was then in
solvent circumstances; and prayed that their interests might be
protected, &c.

The plaintiffs, by their petition, stated, that the defendant Sarah
Hanna, Jr. had attained her full age, since the issuing of the com-
mission to take the answers of the infant defendants, and had
refused to answer their bill of complaint. Whereupon they prayed
process against her, &c.

19th November, 1822.—JOHNSON, Chancellor,—Leave is given
to amend the bill, so as it shall appear by the bill, that the person,
in this petition mentioned, has arrived at full age; and a subpoena
being served on her, if disregarded, the necessary compulsory
process will issue.

After which the defendant Sarah Hanna, Jr. put in her answer,
in which she admitted the execution of the conveyance by her
father, as charged in the bill; but declared, that he was then sol-
vent, as she had heard and believed; and that she had no know-
ledge of any other matters set forth in the bill.

The plaintiffs' solicitor, by an application in writing, prayed,
that a commission might issue to take testimony, &c. To which
a solicitor, who appeared only for the defendants, Alexander B.
Hanna and wife, and Sarah their daughter, subjoined his consent
in these words, "the undersigned, as counsel for such of the above
defendants as he appears for, consents to the above commission as
prayed for by the complainants," upon which, on the 24th of April,
1823, the Chancellor said "let the commission issue;" and it was
issued accordingly.

On the 15th of December, 1823, the plaintiffs, by their petition,
stated, that the infant defendant, Andrew Hanna, had returned to
this state, and was then a resident of the city of Baltimore, but
5 v.2