HELMS v. FRANCISCUS. 547

an allowance. They set out, as exhibits, their accounts previous
to that time, passed by the Orphans Court, and represent the estate
as still unsettled. Franciscus stated, that the partnership was
formed in April, 1809, of the testator and himself, and none other ;
that there were no written articles, but each was to share equally;
that the firm, at the time of the death of the testator, held a lease-
hold interest in a house and lot in Baltimore, a ship, called the
General Hands, and a brig, called Francis F. Johnson; that a
large amount of other property had come to his hands; but that
the partnership affairs had not then been wound up, and he offered
to the plaintiff a full and free inspection of the partnership books.

This answer, although purporting to be the answer of both de-
fendants, yet having been sworn to by Franciscus only, might have
been treated as no answer from the defendant Sadtler, But the
plaintiff filed exceptions to its sufficiency, in which she distinctly
speaks of it as the answer of both, and thereby virtually waived any
objection to it, because of its having been sworn to by only one of
the defendants. An order was passed appointing a day for hearing
those exceptions; but as no further notice was taken of them in
any of the subsequent proceedings, they were passed over at the
final hearing as having been tacitly abandonded.

On the 11th of February, 1825, Anna G. M. Helms, formerly
Newhaus, by her next friend, Frederick Augustus Wandelohr, and
Joseph Sumwalt, and John McFarren, Jr. filed their supplemental
bill against John Franciscus, Philip B. Sadtler, Carsten Newhaus,
John Henry Newhaus, Jacob Newhaus, John Rathean, Susan Huller,
otherwise called Muller, Frederick Muller, Anna G. Bauer, Jacob
Bauer and Lewis Helms. This bill, after reciting the substance of
the before mentioned original bill, to which this is made a supple-
ment, stated that, since the filing of that bill, the suit had abated
by the marriage of the plaintiff Anna, with the now defendant
Lewis Helms, who had separated from her; and that they had en-
tered into a written agreement to live separate, by virtue of which
agreement of separation, and of the power of this court to have
any property of a feme covert, which her husband asks its aid to
recover, settled upon her and to her exclusive use, the plaintiff
Anna insisted that she was entitled to have the whole of the
residuary legacy applied to her exclusive use.

This bill further stated, that the surviving partner had finally
wound up the affairs of the partnership; that the executors had
paid the debts and completely settled up the estate of the testator;