500 ARTICLE 16.

An. Code, sec. 149. 1904, sec. 140. 1888, sec. 127.

164. 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 publication, 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 defendants; 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 con-
fesso, 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 deposition 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; Buckingham v. Peddicord, 2 Bl. 447; Purviance
v. Barton,, 2 G. & J. 315.

No notice of decree pro confesso is required. Harrison v. Morton, 87 Md. 677.
Proof taken ex parte cannot be used against defendants who are not in default.
Kerr v. Martin, 4 Md. Ch. 343.

For cases arising under art. 16, sec. 115, of the Code of 1860 (analogous 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, sec. 1 (analogous in its provisions
to equity rule 12), see Higgins v. Horwitz, 9 Gill, 343; Richardson 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. 219.
See notes to secs. 163 and 167.

An. Code, sec. 150. 1904, sec. 141. 1888, sec. 128. 1820, ch. 161, sec. 2.
165. Whenever any bill shall charge any matter or thing as being
within the private knowledge of the defendant and shall pray a discovery,
on oath, as to such matter or thing, and an interlocutory decree, as provided
for in the last preceding section, shall have been entered, and the plaintiff
shall satisfy the court, by affidavit, to be taken in open court and filed in
the cause, that such matter or thing does rest in the private knowledge of
the defendant, and that there is reasonable ground for believing, prima
facie, that such matter or thing does exist, the said court is authorized and
required to order the bill as to such matter or thing, the same being suffi-
ciently alleged and charged, to be taken pro confesso, and to proceed to
make a final decree in the case, in the same manner as if such matter or
thing had been proved or admitted by answer.

The decree pro confesso must precede the final decree upon bills of discovery
under this section. Oliver v. Palmer, 11 G. & J. 445.

Cited but not construed in Korns v. Shaffer, 27 Md. 89; Purviance v. Barton,
2 G. & J. 317; Salmon v. Clagett, 3 Bl. 148; Buckingham v. Peddicord, 2 Bl. 454.

See sec. 209.