526 MAYER v. TYSON.—1 BLAND.

The time allowed by this order for putting in a sufficient answer
having elapsed, and the defendant Thomas Tyson having failed to
answer as required, the plaintiffs brought the matter before the
Court, and moved that the case might proceed as against him, and
the other defendants.

BLAND, C., 10th July, 1828.—Where the answer of the only
person who has been made a defendant is, upon exceptions, held
to be insufficient, the plaintiff is authorized, according to the Eng-
lish course of proceeding, to take the case up where it stood when
the insufficient answer was filed, and proceed thenceforward against
the defendant, so as to have him committed to custody until he does
answer, or to have the bill taken pro confesso; because an insuffi-
cient answer is as no answer at all. Child v. Brabson, 2 Ves. 110;
Turner v. Turner, Dick. 316; Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 24; Darwent
v. Walton, 2 Atk. 510; Gregor v. Ld. Arundel, 8 Ves. 88. And so,
where only one of the defendants stands in the situation of not
having answered sufficiently, the like course must be had against
him alone, so as to enable the plaintiff to proceed with effect against
the other defendants. 1 Fow. Excli, Pro. 199; Royall v. Johnson,
1 Rand. 421.

Upon this principle, and as it has been provided by our Acts of
Assembly, that, where a defendant fails to answer, the bill may be
taken pro confesso; 1799, ch. 79, s. 1; Clapham v. Clapham, ante, 126;
so here where only one of the defendants has contumaciously ne-
glected to put in a sufficient answer, after his first had been deter-
mined to be insufficient, it must be allowable and is essentially ne-
cessary, to have bill taken pro confesso as against him alone, so as
to enable the plaintiff to proceed safely and with effect against him
together with the other defendants.

Whereupon it is decreed, that the bill of complaint be and the

same is hereby taken pro eonfesso as against the defendant Thomas

Tyson; and the plaintiffs are allowed further to proceed with their

*case, according to the course of the Court, in such man-

561 ner as they may deem proper.

After which the defendants, who had some time previously put
in their answers, by their petition prayed, that as the plaintiffs did
not reside within this State, they might be ordered to give secur-
ity for costs.

BLAND, C., 20th April, 1829.—As the origin and principles of
the practice in relation to this matter do not appear to be as gene-
rally understood as they should be, I shall avail myself of this
occasion to speak of the subject more fully than might otherwise
be deemed necessary.