BUCKINGHAM v. PEDDIGOED.—2 BLAND. 429

ance. Forum Rom. 26, 64; 1 Harri. Pra. Cha. 194; to prevent which
it was declared, by an English statute, passed in the year 1705,
and adopted here, that no process for appearance should issue till
after the bill was filed, except in cases of bills for injunction to
stay waste, or to stay suits at common law. 4 Ann, ch. 16, s. 22;
Kilty Sep. 247; 2 Mad. Cha. 197; 4 Inst. 92. But even in these ex-
cepted cases, as no injunction is ever granted in England without
an affidavit setting forth the circumstances out of which the
equity arises, to which the bill, in order to insure a continuance of
the injunction, must substantially conform, the defendant is thus,
in all cases, according to the present course of proceeding, at once
informed, on bis appearance, of the cause of complaint to which he
is called upon to anwer. But no relief whatever can be granted
upon the bill against an absent person; because no proof can be
made against him, and there can be no foundation for a decree
without confession or proof of the matters stated in the bill. Fo-
rum Rom. 36.

The first process for calling the defendant in, to appear and an-
swer, is the subpcena. If he should be abroad, or cannot be served
with that process, the case can proceed no farther, and the plain-
tiff must, according to the English course of proceeding, in many
cases, go without redress. But if after having been summoned by
the subpoena, a defendant fails to appear, then there goes against
him an attachment for contempt, Co-well v. Seybrey, 2 Marid, 18,
note; and after that an attachment with proclamation; then a com-
mission of rebellion, and then a sergeant-at-arms; and if he should
not be taken and brought in upon any of those writs, then there
may be issued a sequestration, by which all his property may be
taken, and held by the officer of the Court; from which property,
so taken, a plaintiff may; in some cases, obtain satisfaction. Nodes
v. Batle, 2 Rep. Cha. 283; Moyser v. Peacock, 3 Rep. Cha. 22; 2
Freem. 127; Davis v. Dams, 2 Atlc. 23; 1 Harri, Pra. Cha. 194,
229, 242. 254.

But, notwithstanding that there could be no decree upon the bill
against the defendant, until it was declared, by a British statute,
passed in the year 1732, and adopted here, that in such cases, on
publication being made as therein prescribed, warning the absent
or absconding defendant, who had, or who had not been served
with the subpcena, to appear, the bill * might be taken pro
confesso. 5 Geo. 2, ch. 25; Kilty Rep. 189; Mawer v. Mawer. 450
1 Cox, 104; Short v. Downer, 2 Cox, 84: Neale v. Norris, 5 Ves. 1;
Winchester v. Beavor, 5 Ves. 113; 1 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 212. But as
an express, or constructive appearance is deemed indispensable
to enable a plaintiff to obtain relief; and as it sometimes hap-
pened, that a defendant, who had been arrested and brought in
upon some one of the writs, following the subpoena, refused to enter
his appearance, it was, by the same statute, declared, that if a