518 SNOWDEN v. SNOWDEN.—1 BLAND.

The practice in Maryland is different. I have met with no evi-
dence, that it ever was at any time, either before or since our
Revolution, the practice of this Court to have the defendant
actually brought in merely to swear to his answer before the
Chancellor or the register of the Court. It appears to have been
always the practice here for the defendant to swear to his answer
before a Judge or a justice of the peace, which when thus authenti-
cated and filed, has been uniformly received and dealt with as an
answer. Brice v. Alexander, MS. Chan. Proc. lib. W. K. No. 1,
fol. 43; Mackall v. Morsell, MS. Chan. Proc. lib. W. K. No. 1, fol.
223. This practice is admitted on all hands to be exceedingly con-
venient, and I have never heard of the slightest evil arising from
it. But if a defendant neglects or refuses thus to answer, he may
be attached and committed to close custody until he does answer.
Cooper v. Cooper, 1788, MS. Chan. Proc. lib. S. H. H. let. B, fol.
351.(d) *If an adult defendant reside abroad or beyond
552 the jurisdiction of the Court it has been the practice, where
he himself wishes or is willing to answer, to issue a commission,
on petition, for taking his answer to four commissioners. And the
course of proceeding in such case appears to be substantially
similar to the English mode of obtaining the answer of a defend-
ant who resides abroad or at a greater distance than twenty miles
from London. Hornby v. Pemberton, Mosely, 57; Prout v. Slater,
MS. 3d April, 1799; Chan. Proc. lib. S. H. H. No. 7, fol. 25; Chan.
Proc. 1761, lib. D. D. No. J, fol. 59.

It would seem, that, according to the course of proceeding in
the English Court of Chancery, there may be a material distinc-
tion between a guardian ad litem of an infant defendant, and a
guardian having no other concern with the case than merely to
answer the bill. The guardian ad litem must not only answer the
bill, but is bound to inform himself of all circumstances, and to
make as good a defence for his ward as the nature ol his case will
admit; while on the other hand, as it would seem, the duty of a
guardian to answer only, extends no further than merely to the
making and filing of an answer. 1 Newl. Chan. 105, 138; 2 Newl.
Chan. 152; 1 Harr. Pro. Chan. 708. But however this may be in
England, I have met with no clear unequivocal evidence of any
such distinction ever having prevailed here.(e) In all cases in this

(d) Bowie v. MOCKBEE.—ROGERS, C., December, 1780.—On motion of the
complainant's solicitor, ordered, that the defendant stand committed to close
custody of the sheriff of Prince George's County, to remain in custody of
the said sheriff until the said defendant shall put in and file a good and
sufficient answer in this case, and pay the costs of the said attachment of
contempt issued against him in the cause aforesaid.—Chan. Proc. Lib. No. 1,
fol. 295.

(e) CHAPMAN v. BARNES.—This was a creditor's bill filed against the heir
and administrator of the late Richard Barn.es to have Ms land sold for the