HAMMOND v. HAMMOND. 351

his duty to use all proper diligence in answering for the infant; (p)
and in seeing that the proofs are correctly taken and brought in;
(q) and he will be held liable if guilty of any fraud, misconduct, or
negligence; (r) generally speaking, the infant will be bound by
the consent of such a guardian, as well as by that of his solicitor

in relation to the regular conduct of the suit, (s) But where, after
evidence had been taken under an original bill, an amended bill
was filed, making infants parties, their guardian ad litem was not
allowed to consent to the reading of such evidence against them;
(t) nor has such a guardian any power to execute a release for the
purpose of giving competency to a witness; (u) nor is he allowed,
merely as such, to receive any money which, in that suit, may
be awarded to the infant; (w) or, in any way to bind the interests
of the infant by a consent, operating as a contract, in relation to
matters intended to sustain the claim of the plaintiff; or to supply a
defect in the merits of the plaintiff's case, which do not constitute a
part of the regular proceedings in the suit. Yet, if there be no ap-
parent and just ground of defence, such a guardian may consent to
a decree againt the infant, (x) An infant defendant, however, who
always answers by his guardian ad litem, who alone swears to the
answer, cannot be bound by any admission in his answer so made ;
it amounts to nothing; it cannot be read against him; and for
that reason, where he admitted the claim by such an answer, it
was, nevertheless, deemed necessary to read the proofs to see that
the plaintiff had made out his case; and even where such proof
might readily be produced, the parol was allowed to demur until
the infant attained his full age. (y)

(p) Snowden v. Snowden, 1 Bland, 553.—(q) Quantock v. Bullen, 5 Mad. 81.—
(r) Richmond v. Taylour, 1 Dick. 38; Pearce v. Pearce, 9 Ves. 548; Ward v.
Ward, 3 Meriv. 706; Russell v. Sharpe, 1 Jac. and Wal. 462; Gilb. His. Com.
Pleas, 54.—(s) Tillotson v. Hargrave, 3 Mad. 494; Scarth v. Cotton, Ca. Tem. Tal.
198.—(t) Quantock v. Bullen, 5 Mad. 81.—(w) James v. Hatfield, 1 Stra. 548; Fra-
ser v. Marsh, 3 Com. Law Rep. 235.—(w) Corrie v. Clarke, 1 Bland, 86, note.—
(x) Richmond v. Taylour, 1 Dick. 38; Wall v. Bushby, 1 Bro. C. C. 488.—(y)
Leving v. Claverly, Prec. Cha. 229; Guernsey v. Rodbridges, Gilb. Rep. 4; Foun-
taine v. Caine, 1 P. Will. 504; Wrottesley v. Bendish, 3 P. Will. 236; Chaplin v.
Chaplin, 3 P. Will. 367; Eggleston v. Speke, 3 Mod. 259; S. C. Carth. 79; Legard
v. Sheffield, 2 Atk. 377; Strudwick v. Pargiter, Bunb. 338; Lucas v. Lucas, 13
Ves. 274; Lechmere v. Brasier, 2 Jac. and Wal. 290; Lock v. Foote, 6 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 67; Kelsall v. Kelsall, 8 Cond. Cha. Rep. 58; Beasley v. Magrath, 2 Scho.
and Lefr. 34; Savage v. Carroll, 1 Bal. and Bea. 553; 1 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 415;
Bac. Abr, tit. Infancy and Age, L. 1.