424 McKIM v. ODOM.—3 BLAND.

had been held to be, in all respects, beyond the power of the Court
to provide. The object was to substitute a public waruin-g,
through the newspapers, for a personal summons, in cases where a
summons could not be served at all, or without great difficulty.
For, although the service of a subpoena abroad is deemed suffi-
cient; yet it cannot, in all cases, be effected; and, where it can,
the proof of such service is always attended with much delay and
expense. Those legislative enactments, in relation to non-resi-
dents, clearly indicate, that the Court, in the opinion of the Legis-
lature, has no power to dispense with the service of process on the
defendant, in the usual mode, whereby he is to be notified of, and
called on to answer any matters of iaet which the plaintiff has
set forth as the foundation of a claim tor relief against him. And
this is recognized as a well established general rule by all the au-
thorities. 2 Mad. Pr. Chan. 198; 1 Hart: Pra, Chan. 206; Bucking-
ham v. Peddicord, 2 Bland, 447; Nolan v. Nolan, 12 Cond. Chan.
Rep. 47, 121.

This, however, like almost all other general rules, has some ex-
ceptions or modifications. The Court has substituted service, in
se\ eral cases, where the defendant may have notice of the pro-
ceedings, and where, in case he goes out of the way, there is a
person who he has named in Court as his agent, and who the Court
can look upon as such. But a person named agent for a different
purpose cannot be looked on in that light. Smith v. The Hibernian
Mine Company, 1 Scho. & Lefr. 238. As in case of an injunction to
stay proceedings at law, the attorney-at-law is such an agent, who
the Court can regard as one charged with the whole defence of the
matter in equity; and so too, where a defendant, who lives abroad,
refuses to answer, after having appeared as required by the sub-
poena with which he has been served, the Court will order service
on his solicitor to be deemed good service of a subpcena to answer
an amended bill; because in all such cases there * is a person
430 before the Court charged with the care of the whole matter
in coutroversy; and one who the Court can, with propriety, regard
as an agent having had committed to him the defence of the
whole subject in behalf of the non-resident defendant. Gildenichi
v. Charnock, 6 Ves. 171.

But, in this instance, a resident citizen defendant has evidently
done no more than to commit his interests, in a specified case, to
the management of his solicitor according to the defence expressed
in his answer to the original bill. In these respects his situation
is materially different from that of a contumacious non-resident
defendant. The agency constituted by such a defendant is, evi-
dently that of a general charge; but the confidence reposed in the
solicitor, in this case, is special and particular. He has been fur-
nished with an answer or defence exactly fitted to a given case;
and therefore, now, that it has been varied by an amendment of