520 SNOWDEN v. SNOWDEN.—1 BLAND.

assigning to him a guardian ad litem. If a guardian so appointed
refuses to act, or after accepting the trust dies, another may be
appointed in his stead by special order or under a commission.
2 Newl. Chan. 155; Wilson v. Bott, 1 Prlc. 62; Perkins v. Hammond,
Dick. 287; Smith v. Marshall, 2 Atk. 70; McMechen v. Evam, MS.
3d November, 1817. But although a person appointed guardian
ad litem cannot be compelled to take upon himself the trust; yet if
he does accept it, he may be compelled by attachment to appear
and answer. Taylor v. Dwrben, 1787, Chan. Proc. lib. S. H. H. let.
B, fol. 41.(g) For a long time past it has been * considered
554 as the settled practice, to let a commission go to one com-
missioner only within the State to appoint a guardian and take
the answer of an infant defendant; which has been found to be so
cheap and convenient, a method, that I have never known a com-
mission, in my time, to be issued for that purpose to more than one
commissioner within the State. Brown v. Brooker, MS. October,
1800, &c., &c.

In England, when an infant defendant resides out of the juris-
diction of the Court, a commission may be sent abroad to appoint
a guardian and take his answer, and on a supplemental bill being
afterwards filed the same guardian may be authorized to answer
for him. Jongsma v. Pfiel, 9 Ves. 357; Lushington v. Sewell, 6
Mad. 28. But no instance has been shewn, prior to the year 1797,
in which a commission has issued from this Court, to obtain the
answer of an infant defendant beyond the jurisdiction of the
Court, to a single commissioner only. In the case cited; Diffendall
v. Diffendall, Chan. Proc. lib. S. H. H. No. 7, fol. 148, 155: the bill
was filed to obtain a conveyance of lands in specific performance
of a contract; it was stated in the bill, that the infant defendants
lived in Adams County in Pennsylvania; and subpoanas were
prayed generally. Upon which a commission was, on the 14th of
December, 1802, issued to one commissioner only in Frederick
County in this State, which is conterminous with Adams County
in Pennsylvania; who in pursuance thereof appointed a guardian,
stated to be of Frederick County, by whom the answers were
taken and returned. The inference from this case is, that it was
believed to be more convenient thus to send the commission to one
commissioner in Frederick than to four in Pennsylvania.

Such appears to have been the understanding of the profession
as to the practice when the Legislature declared, that in cases of

(g) PERKINS v. GLEAVES.—HANSON, C., February, 1790.—Rule that Doctor
William Gleaves shew cause to this Court on the first of April next, why
an attachment should not issue against him for a contempt in refusing to
answer on behalf of the infant to whom he was appointed guardian ad
litem, by a commission issued by this Court and returned. No cause having
been shewn, it is ordered that attachment issue against William Gleaves to
answer, &c.—Chan. Proc. Lib. S. H. H. let. C. fol. 582.