McKIM v. ODOM.—3 BLAND. 421

answer is under the common seal, the bill must pray, that a writ
called a writ of distriwgas, may issue under the great seal, which is
for the purpose of distraining them by their goods and chattels, rents
and profits, until they obey the summons or direction of the Court."
Coop. PL Eq. 16. What is here said, however, as to the prayer of
the bill, is certainly * wrong; the authorities cited warrant
no such assertion. Harvey v. East India Company, 2 Vern. 426
395; S. C. Free. Cha. 128. And it has also been said, that a
subpoena is not the proper original process against a corporation;
because it has no conscience; Com. Dig. tit. Franchises, F, 19.
This is also an error; for, in all cases, where a corporation is made
defendant, the first and proper process for cal.ling it in to appear
and answer is the same as that used for summoning a natural per-
son; that is, a subpoena; and accordingly the bill prays for a sub-
poena, and no other process. Willis Eq. Plea. 8; Lowten v. The
Mayor of Colchester, 2 Meriv. 395. The bill, it is true, must
always ask for that original process which is suited to the nature
of the case; against natural and artificial persons a subpcena is
prayed for; against non-residents an order of publication, made
the substitute of a subpoena, is asked; and against the Attorney-
General it is prayed, that he may be attended with a copy of the
bill; Willis Eq. Plea. 7; 2 Mad. Pro,. Chan. 202; which form of
prayer, as against the Attorney-General, appears to be recog-
nized by several Acts of Assembly, 1785, ch. 72, s. 29, and ch. 78,
s. 1; April, 1787, ch. 30, s. 4; 1799, ch. 79, s. 7; with only two ex-
ceptions, in which he is directed to be summoned, or served with
a subpoena. 1786, ch. 49, s. 8; 1794, ch. 60, s. 6. These prayers
are indispensably necessary, because it is an established rule,
that no one is to be considered a party to the suit, against whom
no process or publication is prayed, and served with it, or the
publication made. Windsor v. Windsor, 2 Dick. 707; Reilly v.
Ward, 5 Bro. P. C. 495; Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland, 245.

If the body politic neglects or reluses to appear as required by
the subprena which has been served on the Mayor, president or
any director or manager, or other officer, then the next process is
a distringas, the form of which writ is substantially the same at
law as in equity. 2 Harr. Ent. 674; 1 Harri. Pra. Chan. 264; 1832,
ch. 306, s. 5. By this writ the sheriff is commanded to make a
distress upon the lands and tenements, goods and chattels of the
corporation; and it is endorsed thus: "By the Court at the suit
of A. B. for want of an appearance, (or answer, as the case may
be.") But in England upon the first writ the sheriff generally
levies forty shillings issues; upon the alias distringas, four pounds;
on the pluries distringas he levies the whole property; and on the
return of the pluries a sequestration is granted. 1 Harr. Prac.
Chan. 264. Thus far there appears to be not the slightest dif-
ference to be found in the books, either as to the form of the pro-