120 HALL v. HALL.—1 BLAND.

cation, (1 G. & J. 393,) the plaintiffs again sued out a fieri facias
upon the decree of the 4th of August, 1825, on which execution,
it is understood, that the plaintiffs, as before, endorsed a credit
for so much as they admitted had been awarded to them more than
was due.

130 * HALL v. HALL.

ELECTION.—REVIVOR OF SUITS.

Wherever a testator devises a part of his estate to one who has a claim upon
it independently of him: it is a settled principle of equity, that the de-
visee shall not be allowed to disappoint the express or obvious intention
of the testator by taking both; but shall be put to his election to take
the one or the other, (a)

The mode of reviving a suit in equity, according to the Act of 1820. ch. 161,
which had abated by death. But that Act being cumulative, the party
may revive either in that mode or by bill. The new mode of reviving
applies to no case, except that of a devisee, where a proper bill of re-
vivor will not lie; nor does it apply to an abatement by marriage; or to
an abatement after a decree, (b)

This bill was filed on the 11th of September, 1810, by William
White Hall, against William Hall and Edward Hall, as the execu-
tors of the late Thomas Hall, and against George W. Hall and
others, as his children and legatees. The object of the bill was. to
recover a legacy given, by the deceased to the plaintiff; and the
defence made by the answers of the defendants was, that the
plaintiff, who claimed as legatee under the will, had taken and
held certain lands as heir in tail in opposition to the will; and
therefore ought not to be allowed to sustain this suit for the
legacy.

After this bill was filed, the plaintiff died, and Elizabeth Hall,
his administratrix, by her petition prayed to be admitted as plain-
tiff in his place.

JOHNSON, C., 10th December, 1823.—Ordered, on examining
this application and the accompanying exhibits, that the peti-
tioner be, and she is hereby admitted a complainant, and autho-
rized to conduct the suit; in doing which, the rules laid down by
my predecessor, iu the case of Labes v. Monger at July Term, 1821,
must be pursued, (e)

(a) See Waters v. Howard. 8 Gill. 262. note, as to election; McElfresh v.
Schley, 2 Gill, 181; Addison v. Borne, 3 Bland. 625.

(b) Cited in Hawkins v. Chapman. 36 Md. 97. See Rev. Code. Art. 65, sees.
12-24.

(e) LABES v. HONKER.—This bill was filed on the 8th of June, 1820. by
James Labes, against William Monker and John C. S. Monker, to set aside a