BUCKINGHAM v. PEDDICORD. 449

he was required to make answer was exhibited, and made known
by the plaintiff. This was a grievance; (a) to prevent which, it
was declared, by an English statute, passed in the year 1705, and
adopted here, that no process for appearance should issue till after
the bill was filed, except in cases of bills for injunction to stay
waste, or to stay suits at common law. (b) But even in these
excepted cases, as no injunction is ever granted in England
without an affidavit setting forth the circumstances out of which
the equity arises, to which the bill, in order to insure a continu-
ance of the injunction, must substantially conform, the defendant
is thus, in all cases, according to the present course of pro-
ceeding, at once informed, on his appearance, of the cause of
complaint to which he is called upon to answer. But no relief
whatever can be granted upon the bill against an absent person;
because no proof can be made against him, and there can be no
foundation for a decree without confession or proof of the matters
stated in the bill, (c)

The first process for calling the defendant in, to appear and an-
swer, is the subpoena. If he should be abroad, or cannot be served
with that process, the case can proceed no farther, and the plaintiff
must, according to the English course of proceeding, in many
cases, go without redress. But if after having been summoned by
the subpoena, a defendant fails to appear, then there goes against
him an attachment for contempt, (d) and after that an attachment
with proclamation, then a commission of rebellion, and then a ser-
geant-at-arms; and if he should not be taken and brought in upon
any of those writs, then there may be issued a sequestration, by
which all his property may be taken, and held by the officer of the
court; from which property, so taken, a plaintiff may, in some
cases, obtain satisfaction, (e) But, notwithstanding that there
could be no decree upon the bill against the defendant, until it was
declared, by a British statute, passed in the year 1732, and adopted
here, that in such cases, on publication being made as therein pre-
scribed, warning the absent or absconding defendant, who had, or
who had not been served with the subpcena, to appear, the bill

(a) Forum Rom. 26, 64; 1 Harri. Pra. Cha. 194.—(6) 4 Ann, ch. 16, s.22; Kilty
Rep. 247; 2 Mad. Cha. 197; 4 Inst. 92.—(c) Forum Rom. 36.—(<f) Cowell v. Sey-
brey, 2 Bland, 18, note.—(e) Nodes v. Batle, 2 Rep. Cha. 283; Moyser v. Peacock,
3 Rep. Cha. 22; 2 Freem. 127; Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 23; 1 Harri. Pra. Cha. 194,
229, 242, 254.