ART. 16] PLEADING, PRACTICE AND PROCESS. 401

entering the appearance of defendants, to note in the margin of the
docket the time of such appearance entered; and if the appearance be
by solicitor, and there be more than one defendant, the clerk shall note
for which defendant the appearance is entered; and the court or judge
thereof may, for special reason shown, extend or enlarge the time to
answer, according to the nature and circumstances of the case.

Where a decree pro confesso is entered fifteen days after the defendant's
appearance, but testimony is taken more than two mouths after the entry
of said decree and upon notice to the defendant, and such testimony remained
in court the required time before a final decree was passed, the latter decree
will not be reversed on account of the irregularity in entering the decree pro
confesso before the expiration of twenty days from the appearance. Bailey

v. Jones, 107 Md. 405.

This section by implication authorizes an appearance in propria persona.
Aukam v. Zantziuger, 94 Md. 425.

This section referred to in upholding a decree pro confesso. Harrison v.
Morton, 87 Md. 676

1904, art. 16, sec. 140. 1888, art. 16, sec. 127. Rule 12.

149. Upon service of process, or notice given by publication, as the
case may be, the adult defendants, not being insane, shall appear and
file their answer, plea or demurrer, to the bill or petition, within the
time allowed by this article, or by the terms of the order of publica-
tion, or special order for the extension of time; and in default of
appearance, or of answer, plea or demurrer, after appearance within
the time allowed, the plaintiff may, at his election, 'obtain an order as
of course, that the bill be taken pro confesso as against such defend-
ants; and thereupon the cause shall be proceeded with ex parte as
against the defendants so in fault; and the matter of the bill or petition
may be decreed by the court or judge thereof at any time after the lapse
of thirty days from the date of the order pro confesso, if there be no
answer, plea or demurrer interposed, and the allegations of the bill or
petition present a proper case for relief. But the court or judge thereof
may, in all such cases, if it be deemed proper, order that the allegations
of the bill or petition, or any of them, be supported by affidavit or depo-
sition to be taken as may be directed.

The practice prevails in this state of requiring plaintiffs to support the
allegations of a bill or petition by proof, and a final decree must be sanctioned
by the evidence, although a decree pro confesso has passed. Turpin v.
Derickson. 105 Md. 625. And see Benson v. Ketchum, 14 Md. 331; Bucking-
ham v. Peddicord. 2 Bl. 447; Purviance v. Barton. 2 G. & J. 315.

No notice of the decree pro confesso is required. Harrison v. Morton. 87
Md. 677.

Proof taken ex parte can not be used against defendants who are not in
default. Kerr v. Martin. 4 Md. Ch. 343.

For cases arising under article 16. section 115. of the code of 1860 (analo-
gous in some of its provisions to this section), see Rust v. Lynch. 54 Md.
637; Mondell v. Shafer. 49 Md. 493; Brown v. Kemper, 27 Md. 674.

For cases dealing with the act of 1820. ch. 161. section 1 (analogous in
its provisions to equity rule 12), see Hlggins v. Horwttz. 9 Gill, 343; Richard-
son v. Stillinger. 12 G. & J. 479; Hatton v. Weems. 12 G. & J. 106; Grove v.
Fresh. 9 G. & J. 280; Neale v. Hagthrop. 3 Bl. 573; Buckingham v. Peddicord,
2 Bl. 454; Campbell's Case, 2 Bl. 219; Ringgold's Case. 1 Bl. 19.

No decree pro confesso may pass against infant or insane defendants—see
sec. 204.

See notes to sections 148 and 152.
26