McKIM v. ODOM.—3 BLAND. 423

posited in their bank by the defendant Anderson, in his own name
a»d as his own property; but they averred, that they were en-
tirely ignorant of all the other circumstances set forth in the bill.
The plaintiffs by their petition stated, that the defendant Odoin
had gone beyond sea, where thej did not know, nor when he was
likely to return; that the new matter charged in their amended
bill was not within the knowledge of Odom, who had appeared by
solicitor, and had answered the original bill. Whereupon they
prayed, that a service of the subpoena upon Odom's solicitor might
be construed and deemed as a sufficient service upon Odom him-
self, so as to compel him to answer, or if he failed to do so. that
they might proceed regularly as if he had been summoned.

BLAND, C.. 6th July. 1829.—The petition uf the plaintiffs having
been submitted, the proceedings were read and considered.

It appears, that the defendant Odom, who is a mariner and
master of a vessel, in the merchant service, had made answer to
the original bill; after which the plaintiffs filed an amended bill;
but before Odom had been served with a subpoena to answer, he
sailed on a voyage to a foreign port; that he is a citizen and resi-
dent of Maryland, and is as much at home as those usually are
who, as manners, are engaged in such pursuits as he is, and has
been for some time past; and that he may now be expected to re-
turn soon to the United States, when he may be found at his usual
residence in this State.

By the order of the 15th of September last, the plaintiffs at-
tempted to treat Odom as a non-resident, and to proceed by pub-
lication as against an absent defendant to have their amended bill,
as to him. thus taken pro confesso. But, conceiving the circum-
stances would not warrant it, I refused to pronounce the judgment
consequent upon such a course of proceeding. All the Acts of
Assembly, which authorize a plaintiff to proceed against a defend-
ant by publication, relate to absconding or non-resident defend-
ants; but it was shewn and admitted, that the defendant Odom
stood in neither of those predicaments. He is a citizen and resi-
dent of Maryland, now abroad in his proper and lawful calling,
with an intention of returning when the voyage or trade in pur-
suit of which he left home, shall have been accomplished. A per-
son * who goes abroad, not to reside, but for the purpose of
adjusting his affairs; or a sailor, who is in the habit of
coming backwards and forwards, in his vocation, cannot be
deemed an absconding or a non-resident defendant. White v.
Greathead, 15 Ves. 2; Nelson v. Ogle, 2 Taunt. 253.

It is therefore perfectly manifest, that none of the Acts of As-
sembly relative to absconding and non-resident defendants, apply
to the case of this defendant Odom. The Legislature intended,
by those Acts, to introduce a remedy in certain cases for which it