448 BUCKINGHAM v. PEDDICORD.

in those conveyances at the time of their execution; nor was the
consideration money mentioned in them ever paid by the grantees
to the grantor; but that they, combining and confederating, exe-
cuted those conveyances for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff
and others of the creditors of the defendant Jasper Peddicord.
Whereupon the bill prayed, that those conveyances might be
set aside as fraudulent; that the land therein mentioned might
be sold for the payment of the plaintiff's judgment; and that the
plaintiff might have such other and farther relief as might be
deemed just and equitable.

To this bill each of the defendants on the 18th of February,
1830, put in a separate answer; they each admitted the execution
of the conveyances mentioned in the bill, and gave some account
of the considerations on which they were respectively made.
The plaintiff took exception to each of them; and all coming
on to be heard at the same time; all the exceptions were sus-
tained, and, by an order, passed on the 22d of March, 1830,
each defendant was required to make and file a good and suffi-
cient answer to the bill of complaint on or before the 22d of
April then next, and to pay the costs of the exception, including
a solicitor's fee.

21th April, 1830.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case standing
ready for hearing, on the default of the defendants to answer as
required by the order of the 22d of March last, and having been
submitted by the plaintiff on a motion to have the bill taken pro
confesso, and a final decree passed, the proceedings were read and
considered.

The course of proceeding against a defendant whose answer, on
exceptions, has been held insufficient, does not appear to be clearly
and generally understood. I shall, therefore, avail myself of this
occasion to explain the mode of proceeding against a defendant
who has contumaciously neglected to answer, or who has failed in
an attempt, by a demurrer or plea to protect himself from answer-
ing as the bill requires; or who, after such answer put in by him
has been held, upon exceptions, to be insufficient, has failed to
make a good and sufficient answer, as ordered.

The ancient practice of having the bill first filed, and directing
process to be thereupon issued, as prayed, to bring in the defen-
dant to answer, having been improperly departed from, it very often
happened, that a defendant was vexatiously brought into court, as
for a contempt in not answering, long before the complaint to which