498 BUCKINGHAM v. PEDDICORD.

practice, a bill may be taken pro confesso j upon a demurrer in bar
being over-ruled, or on a plea being found false, (t) And if a defen-
dant attempts to protect himself from answering by a demurrer or
plea, and fails, so that the bill may be taken pro confesso, he may
without being allowed or ordered, to answer as the bill requires,
be compelled, if called on by the plaintiff to answer interroga-
tories, and to make such disclosures as may be necessary, to ena-
ble the plaintiff to obtain the relief he seeks, (u) And so too,
where a bill has been taken pro confesso, the necessary discovery
required of the defendant may be supplied by proofs taken for that
purpose, according to the ancient English mode, (w) or upon inter-
rogatories propounded to the plaintiff, or upon his affidavit, or by
proofs taken in the manner prescribed by the before mentioned acts
of assembly. If, however, the plaintiff's bill so exactly and per-
spicuously sets forth the facts and circumstances of his case, as to
lay a complete foundation for the relief he asks, on its being wholly
taken for true, there can be no occasion for enforcing an answer
in any form, from the defendant; since his tacit admission of the
truth of all the allegations of the bill, as they stand, will be amply
sufficient to enable the court to do full justice to the plaintiff.

It is a general rule, that wherever a defendant submits to an-
swer, he must answer as fully as the bill requires, (x) If he puts
in an answer, to which the plaintiff excepts, and the exceptions
are sustained, the defendant must put in a better answer by the
time appointed for his so doing. The order by which his answer
is declared to be insufficient, places him exactly in the situation in
which he stood immediately before his insufficient answer was
filed; and makes him again liable to any proceeding which might,
at that time, have been had against him; so that where an answer
has been adjudged, on exceptions, to be insufficient, and the defen-
dant has not, as ordered, filed a sufficient answer by the appointed
day, the plaintiff may, according to the principles of the English
practice, again tike up and continue his process of contempt, just
where he had left off when the insufficient answer was filed; or as
at that time, if he was so entitled, have his bill taken pro con-
fesso, and obtain a decree thereon accordingly. Recollecting how-

(0 Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 24; Wood v. Strickland, 2 Ves. & Bea, 158; Trim v.
Baker, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 240; Rowley v. Eccles, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 260.—(u)
Brownsword v. Edwards, 2 Ves. 246; Hawtry v. Trollop, Nelson, Wood
v. Strickland, 2 Ves. & Bea. 158; Sanders v. King, 6. Mad. 63; Thring v. Edgar,
1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 457; Milf. Plea. 302.—(w) Johnson v. Desmineere, 1 Vern. 223.—
(x) Salmon v. Clagett, post.