
    Merritt and another vs. Blackwell and another.
    Where a defendant conforms to the 191st rule, and consents to be personally examined, the complainant cannot compel an answer, although he may have entered an order requiring the defendant to answer or be attached.
    
      October 23, 1832.
    This was a bill to reach property and' choses in action after the return of a writ of fieri facias at law, nulla bona. The defendant, Jacob Blackwell, appeared by solicitor ; and a copy of the bill was served, with notice of an order being entered requiring him to answer within forty days or be attached. He gave a consent to be examined personally pursuant to the 191st rule of the court. The complainant, considering he would be better off by compelling an answer and being desirous of saving the trouble attendant upon protracted examinations in the master’s office, insisted upon his right'to such answer, notwithstanding the consent. It was agreed to, by the solicitors for both parties, to submit the point, in the shape of a motion for attachment for not answering, but without requiring costs.
   The Vice-Chancellor.

I consider the defendant, Jacob Blackwell, cannot be compelled to put in an answer. He has conformed to the provisions of the 191st rule; and by doing so, admits he has property. The complainant, consequently, can take the bill fro confessa and have a receiver appointed to take charge of it; and the defendant can be put to as severe a scrutiny before a master as in answering. Motion denied.  