552 SNOWDEN v, SNOWDEN.

If an adult defendant reside abroad or beyond the jurisdiction of
the court it has been the practice, where he himself wishes or is
willing to answer, to issue a commission, on petition, for taking
his answer to four comrnissioners. And the course of proceeding
in such case appears to be substantially similar to the English
mode of obtaining the answer of a defendant who resides abroad or
at a greater distance than twenty miles from London, (g) ,

It would seem, that, according to the course of proceeding in
the English Court of Chancery, there may be a material distinction
between a guardian ad litem of an infant defendant, and a guar-
dian having no other concern with the case than merely to answer
the bill. The guardian ad litem must not only answer the bill, but
is bound to inform himself of all circumstances, and to make as
good a defence for his ward as the nature of his case will admit;
while on the other hand, as it would seem, the duty of a guardian
to answer only, extends no further than merely to the making and
filing of an answer, (h) But however this may be in England, I
have met with no clear unequivocal evidence of any such distinc-
tion ever having prevailed here.(i) In all cases in this court the
guardian of an infant defendant, whether appointed by a special
order, or under a commission, has always been considered and
treated as a guardian ad litem, appointed for the purpose of
answering and defending the suit, and whose duty it is not only to
answer the bill, but to make the best defence he can according to
the circumstances, for the benefit of his ward; and this appears to
have been recognised as the duty of such a guardian by our acts

(g) Hornby v. Pemberton, Mosely, 57; Prout v. Slater, MS. 3d April, 1799,
Chan Proc. lib. S. H. H. No. 7, fol. 25; Chan. Proc. 1761, lib. D. D. No. J. fol. 59.
(A) 1 Newl. Chan. 105, 138; 2 Newl. Chan. 152; 1 Harr. Pra. Chan. 70S.

(i) CHAPMAN v. BARNES.—This was a creditor's bill filed against the heir and
administrator of the late Richard Barnes to have his land sold for the payment of his
debts, The bill stated, that Mary E. Barnes, the heir of Richard her father, was an
infant, and prayed a subpaena against her as well as against the administrator; a sub-
poena was issued accordingly, and afterwards a commission was issued in the usual
way to take the answer of the infant, under which her answer was returned and filed
on the 24th of February 1814.

19th March, 1814.—KILTY, Chancellor.—A motion was made by counsel for the
appointment of a guardian to defend for the infant Mary Elizabeth Barnes, according
to the practice in England. The Chancellor is not apprised of its having been done
in this State; but such a practice appearing to be equitable and probably necessary,
it is hereby ordered, that John Barnes, of Charles county, be and he is hereby
appointed guardian for the said Mary Elizabeth Barnes, to defend on her behalf the
said suit.