560 NEALE v. HAGTHROR—3 BLAND.

These, then, are the legislative rules, in regard to the whole bill
where no answer at all is put in. But not one of these Acts of
Assembly, which seem to have provided, with such an infinite deal
of care and solicitude, for all the various causes and modes of
neglecting or failing to answer the whole bill, do in any manner
speak of or allude to the case of a neglect or refusal to answer a
distinct and material part only of the whole bill, where an answer
is made to all the re^t. It has been declared, that a bill may be
taken pro confestso, and the Chancellor shall proceed to decree in
the same manner as if the defendant had admitted by his answer
the facts stated in the bill. And in case the defendant has been
summoned, or has appeared, and fails to answer, he must be
ordered to do so by an appointed day, or an interlocutory decree
* may be entered on the default, and a commission issued
**•« ex parte. But, in every case, the consequence of the de-
fault is, that the bill may be taken pro confesso. 1795, ch. 88, s. 1.

Hence, it appears to be clear, that these legislative rules which,
according to their letter, are only applicable to a case where there
is no answer at all; must, in spirit and in principle, be alike appli-
cable to the case where the answer only covers a part of the mate-
rial allegations, and is totally and absolutely silent as to the resi-
due of the bill. And, that the unanswered part of the bill must,
on the hearing, be taken to be true; otherwise, there would be a
manifest inconsistency in the course of the Court. But, the reason
and principle being the same, the rule must be the same in both
cases, if the whole bill be left unanswered it may be taken for
true; or if a part only be left unanswered, that part must, in like
manner, be taken for true.

These Acts of Assembly allowing a bill to be taken pro confesso
on the defendant's default in not answering, authorize the Chan-
cellor to pass a final decree at once, if he deems it unnecessary to
issue a commission. The decree by default, in all such cases, is
as absolute as a judgment by default in an action at common law.

The course of the English Court of Chancery is, in some respects,
different. There when the plaintiff obtains a decree by default,
a provisional clause is superadded, that such a decree is to be
binding ou the defendant, unless, being served with process, he
shall, within a limited time, shew cause to the contrary. And this
decree being sub modo only, is emphatically called a decree nisi;
which cannot be, nor ever is considered as final until the party
has been served with process, and it has been made absolute by
the Court itself. 1 Ham'. Pro,. Chan. 625; Beam's Orders, 198;
Halsey v. Smyth, Jfosely, 186; Venemore \. Venemore, I Dick. 93.

This, it seems, has long been the established practice of the
Courts of Chancery of Virginia. So, that where a defendant has
not answered the bill, it is held to be error to enter a final decree
against him, taking the bill pro confesso, without the previous