Du Pont v. Bauduy

The Chancellor.

In the case of Davis v. Davis an answer was filed which denied the whole equity of the bill; but the answer was reported insufficient. Then the bill was amended, and no answer was put into it, yet Lord Hardwicke seemed to think that the bill should be taken pro confessa. In 3 [Ves.Jr.]2 209, Attorney General v. Young, after two insufficient answers, the bill was ordered to be taken pro confessa. And in 4 Ves.Jr. [619], Jopling v. Stuart, the bill being amended after answer, and no answer put in to the amended bill, the plaintiff was adjudged to be entitled to a decree that the…