BUCKINGHAM v. PEDDICORD.— 2 BLAND. 431

* Such in substance were the principles and practice of the
English and Maryland Court of Chancery, when the General 451
Assembly of this Republic commenced that reformation by which
so many material alterations have been made. They declared,
that in all cases in Chancery, the process-of commission of rebel-
lion and ,sergeant-at-arms, should be omitted as unnecessary: 1785,
ch. 72, s. 26; and have virtually abolished the writ of sequestra-
tion, as a mesne process, by providing other means, incompatible
with its existence, of attaining the same object. 1785, ch. 72. s.
19, 20; 1795, ch. 88, &c.; 1 Newl. Prac. Cha. 85. They have pre-
scribed a mode of proceeding against those who may be found
within the jurisdiction of the Court; and have also provided a
mode whereby relief may be had in equity against absent defend-
ants, who are not resident any where within the State; making
all such regulations alike applicable to all cases, upon an origi-
nal or any other kind of bill: as well where there is only one,
as where there are a plurality of defendants, within or out of
the State; and thus placing it in the power of the plaintiff' to
have each defendant brought in, and compelled to answer, or to
have the bill taken pro confesm against *him; so as to
proceed with the case, and to obtain a final decree against 452
all, if necessary, where there is a plurality of defendants. 1785.
ch. 72, s. 31; 1820, ch. 161; 1 Newl. Pra. Cha. 93; Darwent v. Wal-
ton, 2 Atk. 510; Mayer v. Tyson, 1 Bland. 560.

In regard to defendants who may be found within reach. of the
process of the Court, it has been declared, that if a defendant, being
of full age, and regularly summoned, shall neglect to appear at the
return Court, and shall stand out the process of attachment of con-
tempt, and attachment with proclamation, without appearing and
putting in a good and sufficient answer, by the fourth day of the
term to which it is returnable, (d) the bill may be taken pro con-

the defendant hath not put in any other answer; and that the complainant
hath run out all the process of contempt. Therefore. Decreed, that the bill
be taken pro confesso; that the injunction be made perpetual as to the execu-
tion at law complained of in the bill, with costs; and that the complainant
have a sequestration.—Chancery Proceedings, lib. J. R. No. 1, fol. 72, 73.

CHEW v. MOOEE.—The object of this bill, filed on the 15th of February,
1769, was to foreclose a mortgage, &c. The defendant was summoned, and
he appeared by his solicitor, but failed to answer.

EDEN, C., February, 1774.—Ruled, if no answer in six months, from the
18th day of February, 1774, bill to be taken as confessed, and decree to be
entered accordingly.

After which no answer having been filed, a final decree was passed.—
Chancery Proceedings* lib. No. 1. fol. 56.

(d) Can a defendant after standing out this process, be allowed, as of
course, to come in, and demur or plead? Curzon v. De La Zouch, 1 Swan,
393; Cowellv. Seybrey, 1 Bland, 18, note; Forum Rom. 71.