NEALB v. HAGTHROP.—3 BLAND. 559

be found; the case where there are two or more defendants of one
or some of them beiug non-residents; the case of a bill of reviver
whore the party had removed out of the State, &c. 1773, ch. 7,
s. 3; 1785, ch. 72, s. 30 and 31; 1787, ch. 30, s. 1; 1790, ch. 38, s.
3; 1792, ch. 41, s. 2 and 4; 1794, ch. 60, s. 2, 3, 5 and 9; 1795, ch.
88, s. 1 and 2; 1797, ch. 114, s. 2 and 3; 1799, ch. 79, s. 3 and 4;
1804, ch. 107, s. 2; 1820, ch. 161. And where a party has been
returned summoned, but has i'ailed or refused to appear and
answer, other Acts of Assembly provide, that the plaintiff ma>,
according to a prescribed mode, have his bill taken pro confesao.
1785, ch. 72, s. 19; 1799, ch. 79, s. 1 and 2; 1820, ch. 161.

According to the course of the English Courts there are cases
in which an implied confession is held to be a sufficient ground for
a decree. As where the defendant, having appeared, has been
attached for not answering, and is brought three times from prison
into Court, and has the bill read to him, and refuses to answer;
such a public refusal in Court amounts to a confession of the whole
bill. So, too, where a person appears, and departs without answer-
ing, after process has gone against him to sequestration. There
*also the bill is taken pro con/mo; because it is presumed
to be true when he has appeared and departed in despite ** ' "*
the Conrt, and withstands all its process without answering.
Forum Bom. 36. But these modes of having a bill taken pro con-
fesso having been deemed, in many respects, too oppressive, or
unnecessarily tedious, more easy and expeditious modes have been
provided, by which, if a defendant, who has appeared, fails to
demur, plead or answer, according to the rules of the Court, within
a limited time, the bill may be taken pro confemo. 1785, ch. 72,
s. 20; 1799, ch. 79, s. 2 and 9; 1820, ch. 161, s. 1; Buckingham v.
Peddicord, 2 Bland, 447.

At law, where the nature and amount of the plaintiff's demand
may be distinctly ascertained from the declaration, as in debt,
assumpsit, upon a promissory note, or the like, the judgment by
nil dicit is final; but in actions for the recovery of damages only
it is not so; because the amount claimed is uncertain; and, there-
fore, an enquirv must be made and proof heard as to the quantum
which the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Hence it is, that several
of our Acts of Assembly, which allow the bill to be taken pro con-
fesso, go on to declare, that the Chancellor may, in his discretion,
order a commission to issue for the plaintiff to examine witnesses
to prove the allegations of his bill; or that the plaintiff may him-
self be examined on oath; which Acts of Assembly; apparently in
affirmance of a former course of proceediug, have enabled the
Chancellor to call for proofs and explanations in all cases which
appear to require it. 1799, ch. 79, s. 5; 1818, ch. 193, s. 5; John-
son v. Mesmineere, 1 Vern. 223; HawUns v. Crook, 2 P. Will. 556.