|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McKIM v. ODOM. 415
The plaintiffs by an application charged that the defendant
Odom had left the state, and prayed leave to amend their bill,
stating that fact, and praying an order of publication against him.
Leave being granted, the amendment was made accordingly.
Whereupon, on the 15th of September, 1828, an order of publi-
cation was passed, warning him, 'as being at that time out of the
state,' to appear and answer on or before the 15th of February
then next. But the court on further consideration refused to pro-
ceed on this as against a non-resident defendant.
On the 12th of December, 1828, the plaintiffs by their petition,
stated, that The President and Directors of the Franklin Bank of
Baltimore, had been regularly returned summoned; and had re-
fused to answer the amended bill. Whereupon the plaintiffs
prayed, that a distringas might be issued against that corporation.
5th January, 1829.—BLAND, Chancellor.—A plaintiff has a
right to an answer to his bill from the defendant; the mere taking
of a bill pro confesso, may not, in all cases, serve his purpose; but
if the defendant is beyond the jurisdiction of the court, the plain-
tiff can obtain no more, and must therefore help out his case as he
can. If the defendant be within reach he may be compelled to
answer, and the plaintiff is entitled, as of course, to the coercive
process of the court, for the purpose of forcing his opponent to make
a full answer to all the material allegations of his bill. The mode
of proceeding against contumacious natural persons who neglect
or refuse to answer, is well established and sufficiently energetic;
but the course of proceeding for that purpose against artificial
bodies or corporations, is different, more feeble, and much more
tardy; there being no legislative provision for enforcing an appear-
ance or answer from such defendants, (d)
So far as I have been able to ascertain, this is the first instance
of an application to this court for coercive process against a body
politic. Corporations have latterly become very numerous; and
new ones are created at almost every session of the Legislature;
the matter now submitted for determination, therefore, has an im-
portance much above the interests of the case out of which it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d) It has been since declared, 'That any process Issued by any court of this state
against an incorporated company, holding and exercising franchises within said
state, may be served upon the president, or any director or manager, or other officer
of such company, with the same effect as if such protest were served on the presi-
dent and directors, or a majority of them; and such process shall be deemed to
every effect, service upon said corporate body.'—1832, ch. 306, s. 5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
