428 BUCKINGHAM v. PBDDICOBD.—2 BLAND.

conveyances were concocted in fraud, with the intent and purpose
of cheating the plaintiff, and other of the creditors of the defendant
Jasper Peddicord, and of avoiding the payment of his just debts;
that the defendant Jasper was not indebted to the defendants
Jeremiah and Asbury the consideration mentioned * in those
448 conveyances at the time of their execution; nor was the con-
sideration money mentioned io them ever paid by the grantees to
the grantor; but that they, combining and confederating, executed
those conveyances for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff and
others of the creditors of the defendant Jasper Peddicord.
Whereupon the bill prayed, that those conveyances might be set
aside as fraudulent; that the land therein mentioned might be
sold for the payment of the plaintiff's judgment; and that the
plaintiff might have such other and farther relief as might be
deemed just and equitable.

To this bill each of the defendants on the 18th of February, 1830,
put in a separate answer; they each admitted the execution of the
conveyances mentioned in the bill, and gave some account of the
considerations on which they were respectively made. The plain-
tiff took exception to each of them; and all coming on to be heard
at the same time; all the exceptions were sustained, and, by an
order, passed on the 22d of March, 18.30, each defendant was re-
quired to make and file a good and sufficient answer to the bill of
complaint on or before the 22d of April then next, and to pay the
costs of the exception, including a solicitor's fee.

BLAND, C., 27th April, 1830.—This case standing ready for hear-
ing, on the default of the defendants to answer as required by the
order of the 22d of March last, and having been submitted by the
plaintiff on a motion to have the biil taken pro confesso, and a final
decree passed, the proceedings were read and considered

The course of proceeding against a defendant whose answer, on
exceptions, has been held insufficient, does not appear to be clearly
and generally understood. I shall, therefore, avail myself of this
occasion to explain the mode of proceeding against a defendant
who has contumaciously neglected to answer, or who has failed in
an attempt, by a demurrer or plea to protect himself from answer-
ing as the bill requires; or who, after such answer put in by him
has been held, upon exceptions, to be insufficient, has failed to
make a good and sufficient answer, as ordered.

The ancient practice of having the bill first filed, and directing
process to be thereupon issued, as prayed, to bring in the defen-
dant to answer, having been improperly departed from, it very
often happened, that a defendant was vexatiously brought into
Court, as for a contempt in not answering, long before the com-
plaint to which * he was required to make answer was exhib-
449 ited, and made known by the plaintiff. This was a griev-