ambler case sweet against doctor young in exchequer d Nov if a executor know  plaintiff title deny it he be not bind to set out a account of asset but if  the title do not lie in his knowledge he S Q decree book bill by plaintiff as  next of kin to mrs Kennon against the defendant who be her executrix for the  undisposed residue of the testatrixs personal estate as a result trust the  defendant have a express legacy give he by the will and therefore be not  entitle to such residue the defendant by his answer say he do not know that  the plaintiff be next of kin to the testatrix but believe that she be not for  that he have hear the testatrix say that she be not of kin to the plaintiff  and refuse to set out a account of the personal estate the plaintiff take a  exception to the answer and the question be whether the defendant ought under  the circumstance of this case to be compel to set out such a account on the  part of the plaintiff it be urge that if the defendant do not set out the  account it may be attend with great inconvenience in case of his death his  representative may not be so well acquaint with the affair as he be and the  plaintiff will be a considerable loser for want of a proper discovery that  doctor young be very infirm and like to die on the other side it be insist  that a plaintiff be not entitle to such a discovery unless he appear to have a  plain right except in the case of a creditor or legatee that if it shall be  otherwise any person may bring a bill in equity and by set up a feign and true  title oblige the defendant to make a discovery of every thing relative to the  testator affair that such inconvenience will be great than the risk which the  plaintiff run of the executor death before he have make a discovery that as  soon as the plaintiff have establish his right by a decree he may examine the  defendant upon interrogatory and the soon he proceed to hear the early he will  get at the discovery ambler and consequent run the less risk Mr capper of  counsel for the defendant cite the case of Gethin and his wife v gale that  October in chancery Benjamin gale by his will give his real estate to his  nephew Robert Henry gale in tail bill by plaintiff against the defendant  Robert gale and Elizabeth gale the widow of Robert Henry gale personal  representative of the testator suggest that Robert gale be not legitimate son  of Robert Henry and that plaintiff in right of the wife be entitle to the real  estate as heir at law to the testator and pray a account of the personal  estate of the testator and that it may be apply in discharge of a mortgage  secure upon such real estate the defendant insist in their answer that the  defendant Robert gale be the legitimate son of his father and Elizabeth gale  give a account of the marriage but insist that as the plaintiff be not entitle  to any debt or sum of money owe unto either of they from the estate of the say  Benjamin gale or to any legacy under the say will she be not compellable to  account for or discover unto he plaintiff the testator personal estate submit  to be examine upon interrogatory touch the same as the court shall direct at  the hear the plaintiff S take exception to the answer as insufficient in not  have discover the personal estate which be allow by the master and exception  take to his report and Lord Hardwicke be of opinion that where a plaintiff  right be not apparent but remain in doubt he be not entitle to such discovery  except in the case of a creditor or legatee of the testator and allow the  exception to the master report Parker chief baron if the fact be deny and lie  in the knowledge of the defendant the plaintiff be not entitle to a discovery  of asset that be the case of Gethin v gale S c cite Ves ld Redes Tr note u lib  Reg a foe the mother swear in her answer that her son be legitimate but if the  fact do not lie in his knowledge though he deny it yet he must set out a  account of asset there be no inconvenience to the defendant in make such a  discovery but it may be very great the other way ambler Adam baron leg and  Smythe be absent agree with the ChiefBaron exception allow Q the justness of  the distinction the counsel for the defendant be dissatisfy with it the follow  note of this case be from the decree book in the exchequer ambler er p this  day upon open the bill defendant two answer and exception by Mr de grey  counsel for the plaintiff and upon read the exception and defendant answer and  hear Mr capper for defendant it be order that the say exception be allow and  that defendant do pay pound cost to the plaintiff the early case upon the  question how far a defendant be protect from answer full by a denial in his  answer of the plaintiff title or by assert in his answer a probable title in  himself which must be remove before the plaintiff can be entitle be very  contradictory see Richardson v Mitchell Sel Cas c west v Delaware vern Buden v  door Ves Cookson v ellison bro c c Jerrard v sander Ves Jun Newman v Godfrey  bro c S Cartwright v Hutely Ves jun bro c c shepherd v Robert bro c c Jacob v  goodman Cox bro c c in note hall v Noah bro Donegal v Stewart Ves jun see in  Fenton v Hugh Ves in tailor v milner Ves sir William grant seem to have hold  that where there be a total denial in the answer of the title of the plaintiff  the defendant be not compellable to give discovery which be mere consequential  on that title in the plaintiff in the subsequent case of faulder v Stewart Ves  Dolder v Lord Huntingfield b shaw v Ching b row v teed Ves Lord Eldon consider  the question as still open and see peacock v peacock Ves but in Mazarredo v  Maitland mad c c sir I leech vicechancellor say that point videlicet that a  defendant can by answer object to answer be much consider in Sommerville v  mackay Ves it be not express decide there but I remember during the argument  the Lord chancellor express his opinion that a defendant can not answer as to  part of a bill and refuse to answer the rest and I think that so useful a rule  that I shall always adhere to it and in v Harrison mad his honour say the  point be settle if a defendant answer he must answer full and see ovey v  Leighton S S Leonard v Leonard b b Northleigh v Northleigh post and note there  ld Redesd Tr pi mad c p Newld as to the discovery which a defendant be bind to  make where he put in a plea negativing the plaintiff title see sander v king  mad