SNOWDBN v. SNOWDEN.—1 BLAND. 521

partition, the Chancellor on the complainant's motion may direct a
commission to issue unto three persons such as he shall approve,
authorizing them or any two of them to go to the infant and ap-
point a guardian for the purpose of answering and defending the
suit, and authorizing them likewise to take the answer and return
it to the Court. 1797. ch. 114, s. 5. Which provision was after-
wards extended to cases where all the persons reside out of the
State. And it has been also provided, that in case of lands in this
State descending to minors residing out of this State, on a bill
filed by the prochein ami of any such minor, a commission may be
issued to three * persons in the State where the infant re-
sides, authorizing them or any two of them to appoint a 555
guardian to answer and to return his answer. 1818, ch. 193, s. 11
& 12; 1831, ch. 311, s. 8. In these particulars therefore the prac-
tice of the Court has been established by positive legislative
enactment. The course is prescribed in cases where it is said to
have been doubtful whether or not there was any method of pro-
ceeding whereby the object might be attained. The mode thus
pointed out, cannot be considered as an addition to any antece-
dent one, since it is expressly declared, that it was prescribed in
order to remove all uncertainties upon the subject; and not for the
purpose of introducing a new form of proceeding in addition to an
existing one. It does not give a cumulative remedy, but un-
alterably settles and defines a previous ambiguous practice, so
that the Court might safely and readily exercise its then existing
powers. Taking this view of the subject it clearly follows, that
the Court can have no authority to pursue a course of proceeding
different from that which has been thus laid down by the Legisla-
ture. Any practice established by the Court itself may be altered
for good reasons: or by usage such practice may, and in many in-
stances has gradually glided into a new or different course; but
the positive enactments of the General Assembly can never be
disregarded.

By an English statute enacted in 1346, 20 Edw. 3, c. 3; it was
declared, that the justice of gaol delivery should take an oath
before the Chancellor, &c. yet no such oath is now taken, and
the statute is considered as obsolete; Jurist. Court Chan. 13; and
by an Act of Parliament, passed in 1416, 15 Hen. 6, c. 4, it was
declared, that no one should sue out a subpoena in Chancery until
he had given security for costs in case he failed to sustain his bill.
It is said, that this statute has in England by degrees grown out
of use, and is now entirely vanished. 1 Harr. Pra. Chan. 200; 2
Com. Dig. 371. And against a statute passed in the year 1705,
4 and 5 Anne, a practice of no more than seven years was allowed
to prevail. Regina v. Ballivos de Bewdley, 1 P. Will 223; Money
v. Leach, 3 Burr. 1755. A statute passed in 1413, 1 Hen. 5, c. 1,
directed, that none should be elected members of Parliament who