118 BURCH v. SCOTT.—1 BLAND.

case, it appears, that there had been a return against Scott, the
defendant, attached for not appearing; in consequence of which,
on the 30th of March, 1824, the usual order nisi was passed, re-
quiring him to appear and answer by the fourth day of the next
July Term, which commenced on the thirteenth; and closed on the
twenty-fourth day of the same mouth. Therefore, at any time
after the 17th day of July, 1824, the parties might have obtained
the decree, which was signed on the 4th of August, 1825.

That they did not obtain it sooner can only be imputed to their
own misunderstanding, negligence, or indulgence; because, the
Court, on application, would have inspected the proceedings, and
have done on the next day, after that day, precisely that which it
did, when called upon one year after. The plaintiff's in that case,
then, owning to their own negligence or indulgence, stood in no
better situation at the July Term, 1825, than they did at the July
* Term, 1824; because, their decree by default, according to
128 established practice, was liable to be corrected or re-
voked during the term at which it was signed. The July Term,
1825, commenced on the 12th of that month, and was not finally
closed until the 17th of August following. Consequently, the
decree was not final and absolute until that day. After which it
could only be opened or affected by an original bill, or a bill of
review. The bill to set aside this decree was not filed until the
15th day of November, 1825, and Scott, one of the plaintiff's here,
was not charged, on the record of the original case, with a default,
which might have been fixed upon him by a decree, until the 18th
day of July, 1824, making a space of about fifteen months of
apparent negligence, which is to be accounted for, justified or
excused. To find which, we must examine the bill and answer in
this case.

That the defendant, Scott, in the month of July, 1824, and
before he could have been finally fixed with a decree by default,
had made an answer, which was ready to be put on file; that he
had charged his solicitor with the care of it, who had attempted
to forward it to the. register, to be put on file; are facts proved and
not denied. It also appears, that under a firm belief that his
answer had reached its destination, and was on file, his solicitor
proposed to the solicitor of the plaintiff, to agree upon some day
when the cause should be argued by them. The defendant in this
case, Thomas Burch, in his answer, states, that thereupon his
counsel wrote for a copy of Scott's answer, and was informed that
it had not been filed; which information was shortly afterwards

general power of the Court, being the same term; and not on the third sec-
tion of the Act of 1820, ch. 161, which may apply where the term is past.
An answer is not therefore required with the appearance, but the suit will
stand as if an appearance had been entered in the usual way.