SNOWDEN v. SNOWDEN.—1 BLAND. 519

Court the guardian of an infant defendant, whether appointed by
a special order, or under a commission, has always been consid-
ered and treated as a guardian ad litem, appointed for the purpose
of answering and defending the suit, and whose duty it is not only
to answer the bill, but to make the best defence he can according
to the circumstances, for the benefit of his ward; and this appears
to have been recognized as the duty of such a guardian by our Acts

*of Assembly in lelation to this matter. 1785, ch. 72, s. 1;
1797, ch. 114, s. 5. It appears to have been formerly usual, 553
where the infant resided within the State, either to have him
brought into Court by the messenger, if able to attend, and a
guardian assigned him, by whom he was to answer; Eyles v. Le
Gros, 9 Ves. 12; Hill v. Smith, 1 Mad. Sep. 290; or to issue a com-
mission to four, or a plurality of persons, any three or two of whom
were authorized to appoint a guardian and take his answer by such
guardian in exact conformity to the English practice. Gist v.
Gist, 3d November, 1798, Chan. Proc. lib. S. H. H. No. 7, fol. 48, 52;
Merriweather v. Hood, MS. June, 1800; McCoy v. Springer, MS.
October, 1800.

If it appears upon the face of the proceedings, or upon enquiry
into the fact, that the defendant is an infant, the Court cannot
proceed without a guardian to answer and defend for him; Roberts
v. Stanton, 2 Mun. 133; and lor that purpose the Court may either
have him brought before it, or allow a commission to be issued,
which is now much the more usual course; for, although there can
be no doubt of the power of the Court to have an infant defendant
brought in from any part of the State; Dulany v. Frazer, MS. per
HANSON, Chancellor, 19th November, 1792;(f) yet it is rarely found
to be convenient, or necessary to do so merely for the purpose of

payment of his debts. The bill stated, that Mary E. Barnes, the heir of
Richard her father, was an infant, and prayed a subpoena against hei as
well as against the administrator: a subpoena was issued accordingly, and
afterwards a commission was issued in the usual way to take the answer of
the infant, under which her answer was returned and filed on the 24th of
February, 1814.

KILTY, C., 19th March, 1814.—A motion was made by counsel for the ap-
pointment of a guardian to defend for the infant Mary Elizabeth Barnes,
according to the practice in England. The Chancellor is not apprised of its
having been done in this State; but such a practice appearing to be equitable
and probably necessary, it is hereby ordered, that Joan Barnes, of Charles
County, be and he is hereby appointed guardian for the said Mary Elizabeth
Barnes, to defend on her behalf the said suit.

(f) GRIFFITH v. DAVIS.—ROGERS, C., 1789.—On motion of complainant's

counsel, ordered that the messenger bring into Court the body of Henrietta
Davis, the infant, on the fourth day of next Court, she being heretofore
returned by the sheriff of Montgomery County, summoned to appear in this
cause, and attachment having been awarded on her failure to appear on the
said summons.—Chan. Proc. lib. 8. H. H. let. C, fol. 61.