546 HELMS v. FRANCISCUS.

tary granted to the two executors, these defendants; who had
accordingly got into their possession personal estate of the intes-
tate to a much larger amount than was necessary for the payment
of his debts, and the legacies so given to his nephews and nieces,
and that the plaintiff was the sister of the testator mentioned in
his will, who then resided, as therein stated, in Chambersburg, in
the state of Pennsylvania. The bill further stated that the testator
was, at the time of his death, and for about seven years before,
connected with the defendant Franciscus as a partner in the busi-
ness of a sugar refinery, under the firm of Newhaus & Company,
and in certain vessels, &c.; and that the greatest part of the tes-
tator's personal estate, at the time of his death, consisted of pro-
perty, effects and debts, belonging and due to the partnership,
which partnership concern had not been settled, nor any account
thereof rendered by the defendant Franciscus, so as to shew what
proportion of the effects thereof properly belonged to the testator,
and for which the defendant Franciscus, as surviving partner, was
accountable, as a part of the estate of the testator. Whereupon
the bill prayed that the defendant Franciscus might be ordered to
disclose and set forth the nature and terras of the partnership be-
tween him and the testator at the time of his death; to account
for all the property, debts, rights and effects of the partnership,
and to pay over that which belonged to the testator to his execu-
tors, and also that the defendants Franciscus and Sadtler, as ex-
ecutors, might account for the estate of the testator, and be
directed to pay what remained unto this plaintiff as residuary lega-
tee; and that the plaintiff might have such other and further relief
as the nature of her case might require.

After the defendants had appeared, but before they had answered,
the plaintiff, by petition, prayed leave to amend her bill by cor-
recting her name, as therein stated, and instead of c Anna G. M.
Wanddohr,' inserting 'Anna G. M. Newhaus, otherwise called
Anna G. M. Wandelohr.' On the 2d of October, 1818, leave
was granted to amend as prayed, and it was made accordingly, by
merely interlining the proposed amendment in the original bill.

On the 1st of March, 1819, the defendants filed their joint an-
swer, in which they admit the partnership, the will, and the death
of the testator. But they say, that they do not know the plaintiff,
or that she is the residuary legatee mentioned in the bill; never-
theless, supposing she might be the legatee, they bad, to relieve her
necessities, advanced her the sum of $1,500, for which they craved