CHANCERY 657

This section gives a new and additional mode of compelling the attendance of wit-
nesses, in some respects not so clear or energetic as the old proceeding. Winder v. Dif-
fenderffer, 2 Bl. 196. And see Deale v. Estep, 3 Bl. 436.

See art. 35, sec. 12.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 288. 1912, sec. 269. 1904, sec. 251. 1888, sec. 233. 1836, ch. 128, sec. 2.

300. In all cases where any of the defendants have appeared and an
order to take testimony before an examiner has issued, and there are other
defendants who are in default for not appearing or answering, and against
whom an order to take testimony ex parte might issue, it shall not be neces-
sary to pass such order, but the plaintiff may take all his testimony before
the examiner, and such testimony shall be as available against the de-
fendants who are in default, as if the same was taken under an ex parte
order.

Under this section, a complainant has authority under the commission in chief, to
take all necessary testimony as well against defaulting as other defendants, and the neces-
sity of an ex parte commission is dispensed with. Higgins v. Howitz, 9 Gill, 344.

Proof taken under ex parte commission, cannot be read against defendants who an-
swered original bill, though they fail to answer bill of revivor, and interlocutory decree
is passed against them. Kerr v. Martin, 4 Md. Ch. 343.

Testimony taken under a commission issued by consent of certain of the defendants,
cannot be read against other defendants. Kipp v. Hanna, 2 Bl. 26; Clary v. Grimes, 12
G. & J. 31. Cf. Smith v. Baldwin, 4 H. & J. 331.

See sec. 19.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 289. 1912, sec. 270. 1904, sec. 252. 1888, see. 234. 1888, ch. 486.

301. The incorporation in this article of the rules prescribed by the
court of appeals shall not deprive the said court of the power to rescind
or modify any of said rules, or to pass additional rules, in their discretion.