BUCKINGHAM v. PEDDICORD.—2 BLAND. 427

* BUCKINGHAM v. PEDDICORD. 447

CHANCERY PRACTICE.—EXCEPTIONS TO ANSWER.—TAKING THE BILL PRO

CONFESSO,

The course of proceeding against a defendant, whose answer, on exceptions,
has been held insufficient; or who has contumaciously neglected to
answer; or who has, on demurrer or plea, failed to protect himself from
answering as the bill requires, (a)

The Acte of Assembly in relation to proceedings against non-resident, ab-
sconding, or contumacious defendants considered.

In all such cases the bill may be taken pro confesso. or testimony taken,
upon which the Court pronounces the decree; and if it has no jurisdic-
tion must dismiss the bill, (b)

How discovery may be had where the bill may be taken pro confesso.

An insufficient answer is as no answer: and therefore, upon such default,
the bill may be taken pro confesxo. and a linai decree passed.

THIS bill was tiled on the 2d of December. 1829, by Larkin Buck-
ingham, administrator of Thomas Evans, deceased, against Jasper
Peddieord, Jeremiah Barthellow, and Asbury Peddicord. The bill
states, that for a debt due to his intestate the plaintiff, as admin-
istrator, brought suit and recovered judgment in the County Court
of Anne Arundel County, at April Term, 1828, against the defen-
dant Jasper Peddicord, for the sum of $885.20, with interest from
the 16th of August, 1825, and costs; that previously thereto the
defendant Jasper, on the 24th of February, 1826, with the fraudu-
lent intent of avoiding the payment of the judgment, which he
knew would be obtained against him, mortgaged to the defendant
Jeremiah, his son-in-law, one hundred and fifty-one and a half
acres of land lying in Anne Arundel County, for the consideration
of $581; and on the same day mortgaged to the defendant Asbury
Peddicord. his son, one hundred and twenty-six acres of land lying
in the same county, for the consideration of $927.17; that after-
wards, on the Kith of October, 1827. the defendant Jasper, for the
consideration of $1,400, conveyed in fee to this defendent Jeremiah,
the same land which he had previously mortgaged to him; and on
the 22d of October, 1827. the defendant Jasper, for the considera-
tion of $2,000, conveyed in fee to the defendant Asbnry, the same
land which he had previously mortgaged to him. The defendant
Jasper so thereby conveying all his real estate to his son-in-law
and son: in consequence" of which the plaintiff has been unable to
obtain payment of his judgment, or any part thereof; that those

(a) See Equity Eule, 35; Rider v. Riely, 22 Md. 540; Hopkins v. Stump, 2
H. & J. 301; Worfield v. Gambrill, 1 G. & J. 503.

(b) See Rev. Code, Art. 65, secs. 25, 48: Equity Rule, 13.