430 BUCKINGHAM v. PEDDICOED.— 2 BLAND.

defendant should, by virtue of any process, be brought into Court,
and should refuse to enter his appearance, the Court might enter
an appearance for him, npon which the plaintiff might proceed.
5 Geo. 2, ch. 25, s. 2; 1 Fowl. Exch. Pra, 202.

After an appearance has been entered, if a defendant fails to
answer, the plaintiff, to extract an answer from him, may sue out
an attachment, and so proceed to sequestration; alter which, the
bill may be taken pro confesso, and a decree passed accordingly,
without exhibiting' any proof of the truth of its allegations, as was
formerly deemed proper. Johnson v. Desmineere, 1 Yarn. 223; Denny
v. Filmer, Nelson, Go; Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 22; Anonymous, 10
Mod. 431; 1 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 200; 1718, ch. 5. But if the defend-
ant should be taken by any process, after his appearance.-then he
may be imprisoned and held in close custody until he has answered,
or be brought in, and the bill taken pro confesso against him.
Anonymous, 2 Cha. Ca. 237; S. C. 2 Freem, 27; Thomas v. Jones.
Nelson, 50; Hughes v. Owen, Bunb. 299; Snowden v. Snowden, 1
Bland, 551. This course of proceeding may be applied as well to
bills of reviver and amended bills as to original bills. 2 Eq. Ca.
Abr. 178; Jopling v. Stuart, 4 Ves. 619. And as a case cannot be
set for hearing until all the defendants have answered, or until
the whole line of process has been run out, and the bill, where it
is allowable, taken pro confesso against each, this mode of pro-
ceeding must be pursued against, each, where there is a plurality
of defendants. 1 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 199: Geary v. Sheridan, 8 Ves.
192; Hoye v. Penn, 1 Bland, 33.

Upon any reasonable ground of indulgence, however, if the
delay has not been extravagantly long, the Court will, on the
payment of costs, and on the defendant's communicating the an-
swer he proposes to put in, and shewing its sufficiency, set aside
the order for taking the bill pro confesso, and allow the answer to
be filed. Williams v. Thompson, 2 Bro. C. C. 279; Herne v. Ogilvie,
11 Ves. 77. (c)

(c) PARRON v. BRANNOCK, 14th July, 1721.—Bill, Answer, and Exceptions.—
Exceptions held good, and ruled, that the defendant give in a better answer,
and six hundred pounds of tobacco costs. Ordered, that attachment issue
for costs. Answer filed, and exceptions filed to the last answer adjudged
good, and the answer insufficient, with nine hundred pounds of tobacco,
unless cause shewn to the contrary February Court, 1723. Further process
to issue, with twelve hundred pounds of tobacco costs. Ordered, attach-
ment, with proclamation to issue. Commission of rebellion issued to John
Rider, Henry Ennalls, William Ennalls, and Henry Hooper. Commission
returned non est inventus. Ordered, that the sheriff of the county be ser-
geant-at-arms in this cause; and Ordered, that the proper process of sergeant-
at-arms issue, directed to the sheriff as sergeant; process issued and returned,
vide return.

TILGHMAN, C.—It appearing in this cause, that the defendant hath put in
two insufficient answers, which have been set aside upon exceptions; that