BROWN v. WALLACE. 803

After which, Kent Mitchell, who, although not so expressly
stated, appears to have been one of the heirs of William Mitchell,
deceased, by his petition, not on oath, stated, that he was very
much interested in the sum of money which was the subject of con-
troversy; a large proportion of which was to be paid to him, when
collected, by the said Wallace, who was a mere trustee; and there-
fore, prayed to be allowed to come in, answer, &c. Upon which,
it was, on the 2Oth of August, 1824, by Archer, C. J. Ordered,
that the petitioner be permitted to appear, answer, and defend, as
prayed. Under this leave, on the 25th of October, 1824, Kent
Mitchell filed his answer, in which he set forth and relied upon
various facts and circumstances, which had been before in sub-
stance stated and relied on by the defendant Wallace. After which,
this defendant Kent Mitchell, without oath, or stating any reasons,
merely prayed for leave to amend his answer. Upon which it was,
on the 6th of November, 1824, by Archer, C. J. Ordered, that
leave be given to amend the answer, as prayed. Under which
leave, this defendant, on the 5th of March, 1825, put in an amended
answer, setting forth some few additional facts, but none having
any material bearing upon the questions afterwards submitted for
determination.

The second of the cases of Brown against Wallace, was also
commenced in Harford County Court, by a bill filed on the 5th of
March, 1825, by Freeborn Brown and William Brown, against
James Wallace. This bill stated the same facts and circumstances
as in the first bill, and alleged, that the trustee Wallace, was wholly
unable to make a good and valid title to Freeborn Brown, for the
land so purchased by him. Whereupon it was prayed, that the
said contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, respecting
the property in the proceedings mentioned, might be set aside,
vacated, cancelled, &c. To this second bill, the defendant Wallace,
put in an answer, substantially similar to that which he had made
to the first bill

After hearing the motion to dissolve the injunction, the matter
was considered, and the motion was overruled. On the 13th of
March, 1826, Freeborn Brown's death was suggested; and Mary
B. Brown, his executrix and devisee, was admitted as a plaintiff
in his stead. These cases were then removed to this court, under
the act of 1824, ch. 196, and the proceedings all filed here on the
8th of May, 1827. After which, on application, a survey was
ordered, made, and plots returned; testimony was taken and