450 BUCKINGHAM v, PEDDICORD.

might be taken pro confesso, (f) But as an express, or construc-
tive appearance is deemed indispensable to enable a plaintiff to
obtain relief; and as it sometimes happened, that a defendant, who
had been arrested and brought in upon some one of the writs, fol-
lowing the subpoena, refused to enter his appearance, it was, by the
same statute, declared, that if a defendant should, by virtue of any
process, be brought into court, and should refuse to enter his ap-
pearance, the court might enter an appearance for him, upon which
the plaintiff might proceed, (g)

After an appearance has been entered, if a defendant fails to
answer, the plaintiff, to extract an answer from him, may sue out
an attachment, and so proceed to sequestration; after which, the bill
may be taken pro con/mo, and a decree passed accordingly, without
exhibiting any proof of the truth of its allegations, as was formerly
deemed proper, (h) But if the defendant should be taken by any
process, after his appearance, then he may be imprisoned and held
in close custody until he has answered, or be brought in, and the
bill taken pro confesso against him. (i) This course of proceeding
may be applied as well to bills of revivor and amended bills as to
original bills, (j) And as a case cannot be set for hearing until
all the defendants have answered, or until the whole line of process
has been run out, and the bill, where it is allowable, taken pro
confesso against each, this mode of proceeding must be pursued
against each, where there is a plurality of defendants, (k)

Upon any reasonable ground of indulgence, however, if the
delay has not been extravagantly long, the court will, on the pay-
ment of costs, and on the defendant's communicating the answer
he proposes to put in, and shewing its sufficiency, set aside the
order for taking the bill pro confesso^ and allow the answer to be
filed. (I)

(/) 5 Geo. 2, ch. 25; Kilty Rep. 189; Mawer v. Mawer, 1 Cox, 104; Short v.
Downer, 2 Cox, 84; Neale v. Norris, 5 Ves. 1; Winchester v. Beavor, 5 Ves. 113 ;
1 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 212.—(g) 5 Geo. 2, ch. 25, s. 2; 1 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 202.—
(h) Johnson v. Desmineere, 1 Vern. 223; Denny v. Filmer Nelson, 65; Davis v.
Davis, 2 Atk. 22; Anonymous, 10 Mod. 431; 1 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 200; 1718, ch. 5.—
(i) Anonymous, 2 Cha. Ca. 237; S. C. 2 Freem. 27; Thomas v. Jones Nelson, 50;
Hughes v. Owen Bunb. 299; Snowden v. Snowden, 1 Bland, 551.—(j) 2 Eq. Ca.
Abr. 178; Jopling v. Stuart, 4 Ves, 619.—(k) A Fowl. Exch. Pra. 199; Geary v.
Sheridan, 8 Ves. 192; Hoye v. Penn, 1 Bland, 33.—(I) Williams v. Thompson, 2
Bro. C. C. 279; Heame v. Ogilvie, 11 Ves. 77.

PARRON v. BRANNOCK, 14th July, 1721.—Bill, Answer, and Exceptions.—Excep-
tions held good, and ruled, that the defendant give in a better answer, and six hun-
dred pounds of tobacco costs. Ordered, that attachment issue for costs. Answer