McKIM v. ODOM.—3 BLAND. 411

introduced for any purpose. But since it is quite evident that
they have no material bearing upon the question now to be de-
cided, I deem it entirely unnecessary to express any opinion as to
the admission of such affidavits, under any circumstances, upon
the hearing of a motion to dissolve an injunction.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the injunction granted by the
order of the 20th of June last, be and the same is hereby dis-
solved.

* The plaintiffs by an application charged that the de-
fendant Odom had left the State, and prayed leave to 415
amend their bill, stating that fact, and praying an order of publi-
cation against him. Leave being granted, the amendment was
made accordingly. Whereupon, on the 15th of September, 1828,
an order of publication was passed, warning him, "as being at
that time out of the State," to appear and answer on or before the
15th of February then next. But the Court on further considera-
tion refused to proceed on this as against a non-resident defend-
ant.

On the 12th of December, 1828, the plaintiffs by their petition,
stated, that the President and Directors of the Franklin Bank of
Baltimore, had been regularly returned summoned; and had re-
fused to answer the amended bill. Whereupon the plaintiffs
prayed, that a distringas might be issued against that corporation.

BLAND, C., 5th January, 1829.—A plaintiff has a right to an
answer to his bill from the defendant; the mere taking of a bill
pro con/esso, may not, in all cases, serve his purpose; but if the,
defendant is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, the plaintiff can
obtain no more, and must therefore help out Ins case as he can.
If the defendant be within reach he may be compelled to answer,
and the plaintiff is entitled, as of course, to the coercive process
of the Court, for the purpose of forcing his opponent to make a
full answer to all the material allegations of his bill. The mode of
proceeding against contumacious natural persons who neglect or
refuse to answer, is well established and sufficiently energetic; but
the course of proceeding for that purpose against artificial bodies
or corporations, is different, more feeble, and much more tardy;
there being no legislative provision for enforcing an appearance or
answer from such defendants, (d)

(d) It has been since declared, "That any process issued by any Court of
this State against an incorporated company, holding and exercising fran-
chises within said State, may be served upon the president, or any director
or. manager, or other officer of such company, with the same effect as if such
process were served on the president and directors, or a majority of them;
and such process shall be deemed to every effect, service upon said corporate
body."—1832, ch. 306, s. 5.