case sip james johnson versus DESMINEERE of purifying in court Lord keeper Eq  can ab pl S c decree of the court of policy and assurance in London reverse  because the bill there be take pro acknowledged admitted fact after the first  summons the plaintiff bill be a appeal from a decree of the court of policy  and assurance in London whereby the defendant below not appear upon the first  summons the bill be order to be take pro acknowledged admitted fact against he  and for the plaintiff it be insist that though by the statute Elizabeth cap  and the statute car cap the commissioner may proceed in a summary course  without Vernon chancery case formality of plead yet it be very extraordinary  to take a bill pro acknowledged admitted fact upon the first summons and they  ought at least to have have the allegation in the bill prove before they  proceed to make such order and it be say though the course in this court now  be to take a bill pro acknowledged admitted fact after the party have once  appear and stand out in contempt till the plaintiff be get to the end of the  line and have run through all the process of the court against he yet former  this court do not do it even in that case without put the plaintiff to prove  the substance of his bill vide Hawkins v crook p wms Moseley SC Davis v Davis  atk as to bill pro acknowledged admitted fact after amend bill and answer  Joplin v Stuart Ves turner v turner and Bacon v Griffith cite in note there as  to application to the court for bill to be take pro acknowledged admitted fact  on defendant have abscond vide stat that Geo two cap see neal v morris Ves  bishop of Winchester v beaver ibidem by which it be settle that the court will  not make the order for the bill to be take pro acknowledged admitted fact  under the statute unless the affidavit thereby require positive state that the  defendant have be in the kingdom within two year before the subpoena issue and  the decree upon a bill take pro acknowledged admitted fact be not to be draw  up by the plaintiff but pronounce by the court Geary v Sheridan Ves see  further on take bill pro acknowledged admitted fact William v Thompson bro Ch  Rep attorneygeneral v young Ves Seagrave v Edward Ves hearne v Ogilvie Ves  Sidgier v tyte Ves Lewis v marsh S S whereupon the Lord keeper reverse the  decree and though in this case the appeal be not bring within two month after  the decree accord to the say act of the d Elizabeth yet in regard the  defendant can not make out that the now plaintiff have be fair summon the Lord  keeper admit the appeal the cost in the court of policy be not tax nor  execution sign by the commissioner till so late as that the two month allow by  the act do not intervene between the completion of the decree without which  taxation and sign Lord keeper say the decree be not complete and the appeal  and the court declare that the two month ought to be reckon from the first  service with or other regular notice of the decree and also that the act have  provide a power to punish defaulter by contempt by commitment which course the  commissioner ought to have take for a answer r l and thereupon the party agree  to try the matter in a action on the case the plaintiff by order be not to  insist upon the statute of limitation Reg lib a fol plaintiff not allow cost  the suit be to reverse the commissioner decree Vernon chancery case er p