BUCKINGHAM v. PEDDICORD. 451

Such in substance were the principles and practice of the
English and Maryland Court of Chancery, when the general
assembly of this republic commenced that reformation by which
so many material alterations have been made. They declared,
that in all cases in chancery, the process of commission of rebel-
lion and sergeant-at-arms, should be omitted as unnecessary; (m)
and have virtually abolished the writ of sequestration, as a mesne
process, by providing other means, incompatible with its exist-
ence, of attaining the same object, (n) They have prescribed a
mode of proceeding against those who may be found within the
jurisdiction of the court; and have also provided a mode whereby
relief may be had in equity against absent defendants, who are not
resident any where within the state; making all such regulations
alike applicable to all cases, upon an original or any other kind of
bill; as well where there is only one, as where there are a plurality
of defendants, within or out of the state; and thus placing it in
the power of the plaintiff to have each defendant brought in, and
compelled to answer, or to have the bill taken pro confesso against

filed, and exceptions filed to the last answer adjudged good, and the answer insuffi-
cient, with nine hundred pounds of tobacco, unless cause shewn to the contrary
February court, 1722. Further process to issue, with twelve hundred pounds of
tobacco costs. Ordered, attachment, with proclamation to issue. Commission of
rebellion issued to John Rider, Henry Ennalls, William Ennalls, and Henry Hooper.
Commission returned non est invents. Ordered, that the sheriff of the county be
sergeant-at-arms in this cause; and Ordered, that the proper process of sergeant-at-
arms issue, directed to the sheriff as sergeant; process issued and returned, vide
return.

TILGHMAN, Chancellor.—It appearing in this cause, that the defendant haih put
in two insufficient answers, which have been set aside upon exceptions; that the de-
fendant hath not put in any other answer; and that the complainant hath run out all
the process of contempt. Therefore, Decreed, that the bill be taken pro confesso ;
that the injunction be made perpetual as to the execution at law complained of in
the bill, with costs; and that the complainant have a sequestration.—Chancery Pro-
ceedings, lib. I. R. No. 1, fol. 72, 73.

CHEW v. MOORE.—The object of this bill, filed on the 15th of February, 1769,
was to foreclose a mortgage, &c. The defendant was summoned, and he appeared
by his solicitor, but failed to answer.

February, 1774.—EDEN, Chancellor.—Ruled, if no answer in six months, from the
18th day of February, 1774, bill to be taken as confessed, and decree to be entered
accordingly.

After which no answer having been filed, a final decree was passed.—Chancery
Proceedings, lib. No. 1, fol.. 56.

(m) 1785, ch. 72, s. 26.—(n) 1785, ch. 72, s. 19, 20; 1795, ch. 88, &c.; 1 Newl.
Prac. Cha. 85.