438 BUCKINGHAM v. PEDDIGOBD.—2 BLAND.

to reply to, and go to trial, on an insufficient answer, full of ab-
surdities and inconsistencies, or which was in many particulars,
palpably deficient. The taking of exceptions to an answer, is
tantamount to a demurrer, upon an insufficient, plea at law; and if
such a demurrer is sustained, the plaintiff has judgment, because
the plea is insufficient; and so in equity, on exceptions to the
answer being sustained, the like consequences must follow. But
for the adoption of this rule, there would seem to be no end to the
delays which a defendant might produce by repeated sham answers.
And indeed, even as the rule now stands, according to the Eng-
lish system, the expensive delays in Chancery proceedings, under
the present mode of obtaining a fall answer, after a previous one
had been declared insufficient, have been considered as so serious
a grievance, that there has been recently a great effort made to
obtain from Parliament some reforms, similar to those which have
been so long since engrafted into our system. Anonymous, 2 P.
Will. 481; Hawkins v. Crook, 2 P. Will. 566; 8. C. Mosely, 294,
383; Turner v. Turner, I Dick. 316; Bromfield v. Chichester. I Dick.
379; Child v. Brabson, 2 Ves. 110; Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 24; Dar-
went v. Walton, 2 Atk. 510; Wall-on v. Brown, 4 Bro. C. C. 212,
223; Gordon v. Pitt, 4 Bro. C. C. 406 and 544; Attorney-General v.
Young, 3 Ves. 209; 1 Hore. Supp. 362; Jopling v. Stuart, 4 Ves, 619;
Gregor v. Arundel, 8 Ves. 88; Bailey v. Bailey, 11 Ves. 151; 2 Hove,
Supp. 251; Anonymous, 2 Ves. Jun. 270, and 1 Hove. Hupp. 256;
Landoo v. Ready, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 23; 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 179; Forum
Rom. 106.

If, then, we apply these reasonable and established principles,
that, where a defendant has failed to put in a sufficient answer, as
required, the plaintiff may renew his course of proceeding from
the point at which he had left off when the insufficient answer was
tiled; and that an insufficient answer must be regarded as no an-
swer, to the course of proceedings prescribed by the before-men-
tioned legislative enactments, it will be seen that it has; been ex-
pressly declared, that on a defendant being returned attached for
* not answering, he may be committed, or the plaintiff may
460 obtain an ordei to take the bill pro confesso at the next term,
or that if a defendant shall have further time to answer, and shall
not, before the expiration of the time, put in a good and sufficient
answer, the bill may be taken pro confesso, without any further delay,
and a decree passed thereon. From which, it follows, that after a
defendant's answer has, upon exceptions, been declared to be insuf-
ficient, the plaintiff, because of his deeming the discovery he seeks
necessary to his case, may, if he can, by the specified process,
have the defendant arrested and committed to close custody until
he does answer; or the order, determining the answer to be insuf-
ficient, and requiring a better answer by an appointed day, may be
considered, as in truth it is, a grant of further time to answer,