SNOWDEN v. SNOWDEN. 553

of Assembly in relation to this matter.( j) It appears to have been
formerly usual, where the infant resided within the State, either
to have him brought into court by the messenger, if able to attend,
and a guardian assigned him, by whom he was to answer,(k) or
to issue a commission to four, or a plurality of persons, any
three or two of whom were authorized to appoint a guardian and
take his answer by such guardian in exact conformity to the Eng-
lish practice. (1)

If it appears upon the face of the proceedings, or upon enquiry
into the fact, that the defendant is an infant, the court cannot pro-
ceed without a guardian to answer and defend for him;(m) and for
that purpose the court may either have him brought before it, or
allow a commission to be issued, which is now much the more
usual course; for, although there can be no doubt of the power of
the court to have an infant defendant brought in from any part of
the State ;(n) yet it is rarely found to be convenient, or necessary
to do so merely for the purpose of assigning to him a guardian ad
litem. If a guardian so appointed refuses to act, or after accept-
ing the trust dies, another may be appointed in his stead by special
order or under a commission.(o) But although a person appointed
guardian ad litem cannot be compelled to take upon himself
the trust; yet if he does accept it, he may be compelled by attach-
ment to appear and answer.(p) For a long time past it has been

(j) 1785, ch. 72, s. 1; 1797, ch. 114, s. 5.—(ft) Eyles v. Le Gros, 9 Ves. 12;
Hill v. Smith, 1 Mad. Rep. 290.—(/) Gist v. Gist, 3d November 1798, Chan. Proc.
lib. S. H. H. No 7, fol. 48, 52; Merriweather v. Hood, MS. June 1800; McCoy v.
Springer, MS. October 1800.—(m) Roberts v. Stanton, 2 Mun. 133.—(ra) Dulany v.
Frazer, MS. per Hanson, Chancellor, 19th November, 1792.

GRIFFITH v. DAvis.—1789.—ROGERS, Chancellor.—On motion of complainant's
counsel, ordered, that the messenger bring into court the body of Henrietta Davis, the
infant, on the fourth day of next court, she being heretofore returned by the sheriff of
Montgomery county, .summoned to appear in this cause, and attachment having been
awarded on her failure to appear on the said summons.—Chan. Proc. lib. S. H, H.
let. C. fol. 61.

(o) 2 Newl. Chan. 155; Wilson v. Bott, 1 Pric. 62; Perkins v. Hammond, Dick.
287; Smith v. Marshall, 2 Atk. 70; McMechen v. Evans, MS. 3d November 1917.
(p) Taylor v. Durben, 1787, Chan. Proc lib. S. H. H. let. B. fol. 41.

PERKINS v. GLEAVES.—February, 1790.—HANSON, Chancellor.—Rule that Doc-
tor William Gleaves shew cause to this court on the first of April next, why an
attachment should not issue against him for a contempt in refusing to answer on
behalf of the infant to whom he was appointed guardian ad litem, by a commission
issued by this court and returned. No cause having been shewn, it is ordered that
attachment issue against William Gleaves to answer, &e.—Chan. Proc. lib. S. H.
H. let. C.fol 582.

70