
    *Thompson and Veitch v. Strode.
    Thursday, June 2, 1808.
    Chancery Practice — Answer to Part of Bill —Effect.— In this case the bill having been taken as confessed, and a decree nisi returned served, an answer controverting a part of the plaintiffs claim, and not denying the residue, was received as an answer to part only; and a decree absolute was entered for the residue.
    The suit, in this case, was brought to foreclose a mortgage. The bill had been taken as confessed, and the nisi decree returned served ; and now Mr. Williams, for the •defendant, moved to set aside the decree, and to file the answer.
    Mr. Botts, for the plaintiff, objected to the motion, on the ground that the answer controverted only a part of the sum claimed on the mortgage; and asked a decree for so much as was not denied by the answer to be due.
   PER CURIAM.

Suppose the answer'admitted the whole sum claimed, to be due; it would not be received as shewing any cause against the decree, which would, of course, be made absolute. Upon the same principle, whatever is not controverted by the answer may now be decreed in part; and so much as is controverted of the decree, nisi, will be set aside; the answer being received for that purpose only.

The defendant prayed an appeal, which the court refused ; the decree of foreclosure, though absolute, being interlocutory only, 
      
       See Key. Code, 1 vol. p. 375,. ch. 223, sect. 1, and 2 vol. p, 129, ch. 103, sect. 2.
     