|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WEALE v. HAGTHROP. 573
The English courts, evidently under a strong sense of the neces-
sity of there being some better mode of attaining justice than by
a sequestration of the defendant's estate, have carried the doctrine,
in relation to substituted and constructive summons, full as far as
was within the compass of judicial power; further than it ever was
in this state; and yet, short of the point of manifest and general
utility. In the year 1718, the parliament partially interposed, and
provided the means of enabling a plaintiff to proceed against a de-
fendant, who had not entered his appearance, and to have his bill
taken pro confesso, which could not have been done in equity until
then, (j) This statute was introduced into this state; (k) and
seems to have been the prototype of those various legislative
enactments, upon this subject, to be found in our statute book,
from the year 1773, down to the present time.
There are many acts of Assembly, under which a bill may be
taken pro confesso against a defendant, who has not been sum-
moned; nor has appeared. They provide for all the cases, that
have, or, as it is supposed can occur; absent or absconding defen-
dants; non-resident defendants, who are either non compos mentis,
infants or adults; absent or non-resident mortgagors; defendants
whose residences are unknown; resident defendants who cannot
be found; the case where there are two or more defendants of one
or some of them being non-residents; the case of a bill of revivor
where the party had removed out of the state, &c. (I) And where
a party has been returned summoned, but has failed or refused to
appear and answer, other acts of Assembly provide, that the plain-
tiff may, according to a prescribed mode, have his bill taken pro
confesso, (m)
According to the course of the English courts there are cases in
which an implied confession is held to be a sufficient ground for a
decree. As where the defendant, having appeared, has been
attached for not answering, and is brought three times from prison
into court, and has the bill read to him, and refuses to answer;
such a public refusal in court amounts to a confession of the whole
bill. So, too, where a person appears, and departs without answer-
ing, after process has gone against him to sequestration. There
(f) 5 Geo. 2 e. 25; Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 23; I Fowl. Exch. Pra, 201. —(k)
Kilty Hep. 189. —(I) 1773, ch. 7, s, 3; 178S, ch. 72, s. 30 and 31; 1787, ch, 30, s.
1; 1790 ch. 88, s. 3; 1792, ch. 41, s. 2 and 4; 1704, ch, 60, t. 2, S, § and 9; 1795,
ch. 88, s. 1 and 2; 1797, ch. 114, s. 2 and S; 1799, ch 79, s. S and 4; 1804, ch. 107,
s. 2; 1820, ch. 161. —(m) 1785, ch. 72, s. 19; 1709, ch. 79, s. 1 and 2 5 1820, ch, 161,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
