122 HALL r. HALL.—1 BLAND.

BLAND, C., 30th October, 1826.—It is perfectly obvious, that the
fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh sections of the Act of 1820, ch.
161, have done nothing more than to authorize a party to pursue
the course therein prescribed in place of a bill of reviver. It is
declared, that if a party shall die, u it shall not be necessary to
file a bill of revivor," but that this new method may be taken for
renovating the suit. The Act has neither expressly nor impliedly
abrogated the mode of reviving a suit by bill of revivor; but has
only given this hew method of proceeding as an additional mode
of attaining that object, which before could only be effected by a
bill of revivor. But it is a new course of proceeding, which can
only be used in place of a mere naked bill of revivor, by which the
person in whom the title is vested, is the sole fact to be ascer-
tained, and nothing more. It can be resorted to in no case,
except that of a devisee, where a proper bill of revivor will not
lie; nor can it be used in any ease for the purpose of performing
the office of a mere bill of revivor, but where an abatement has
happened by death;(d) for, it is expressly confined to the case of a
bill in Chancery, where "either or any of the parties shall die or
shall have died." And not being repugnant to, nor having super-
seded any other mode of proceeding; nor authorized or contem-
plated the revival of a suit in any case where it was before deemed
illegal or unnecessary to have it revived; it follows, that it can
apply to no case like the present, where the suit has been abated
by the marriage of a female plaintiff'; nor can it authorize or re-
quire a revival on the marriage of a female defendant, which, not
operating as an abatement, did not call for a revival ;(e) nor can it
apply to any case, except that of a devisee, where, because of the
new party's * not claiming by operation of law only, a mere
1333 bill of revivor will not lie; nor can it be resorted to by a

(d) It seems to have been the ancient practice of this Court, in such cases
of abatement, to enter upon the docket a suggestion of the death of the
party: and then, as a matter of course, to add, "Leave given to file a bill of
revivor;" in all such cases as might be revived, (Wilmot v. Taylor, 1771,
Ckan. Proc. lib. W, K, No. 1. page 31—a similar entry 1762, Chan. Proc. lib.
D. D. No. ./, 132, page 57.) But this practice was altered.

KILTY, C., July Term, 1806.—Ordered, that where an entry has been made
on the docket of "Leave to file a Bill of Revivor," in any case which ought
to abate by the death of a party, the said entry be stricken out. and the suit
entered '"abated." And that such suit be not brought forward or continued
on the docket until a bill of revivor shall be filed;—and that in future cases
the entries be made according to this order. The Chancellor considering,
that the provision in the Act of 1785, ch. 80. on this subject, extends only to
suits at law.

(e) The Act of 1831, ch. 311. s. 14, declares, "that no suit in equity shall
abate by the marriage of any of the parties," &c., which, it is presumed,
must be construed to mean any of the parties, plaintiffs; and that, although