HALL v. HALL.—1 BLAND. 123

defendant as a means of reviving the suit in any case, except after
a decree when he can derive a benefit from the further proceed-
ings, and the plaintiff neglects to revive: for no man can be com-
pelled to revive and prosecute a suit, who can have no possible
advantage from it. 1 Mont. Dig. 303; 2 Mad. Chan. 526; Beams'
Plea. 287. And as it cannot be presumed, that the mode of pro-
ceeding prescribed by this law was intended to stand as an addi-
tion to any pre-existing and similar mode of proceeding, which
was, in its nature, more cheap, simple, and expeditious; it there-
fore cannot be considered as having been intended to apply to any
case of an abatement, after a decree, where the suit may and
ought to be revived by a subpoena scire facias. 1 Harr. Pra. Chan.
669; 2 Fow. Ex. Pra. 419; Mitf. PL 69.

It must also be recollected, that the form of proceeding, under
this Act of Assembly, as laid down in the case of Lobes v. Monger,
refers only to a case where the representative of a deceased party
applies to be admitted in his place; for, the Act evidently contem-
plates a different mode of proceeding, where the surviving party
proposes to revive the suit against the representatives of a de-
ceased party. But as it is sufficiently obvious, that a suit cannot
be revived in the mode prescribed by this Act, which has been
abated, as in this instance, by the marriage of a female plaintiff.

It is therefore ordered, that this petition be dismissed, with
costs to be taxed by the register.

Whereupon Bayliss and wife filed a bill of revivor, stating the
fact of their marriage, which being admitted, and an answer to
the bill of revivor, for that purpose, having been dispensed with,
by consent, and the case considered as having been thus revived,
it was brought before the Court accordingly upon its merits.

BLAND, C., 1st January, 1827.—This case standing ready for
hearing, and the solicitors of the parties having been fully heard,
the proceedings were read and considered.

the suit may have been actually abated by the marriage of a female plain-
tiff, yet that it may, as therein prescribed, be revived.

MANNING v. MILLS, 1722.—Bill abated, with costs, by reason of the com-
plainant's intermarriage with one Combs.—Chancery Records, lib. P. L. 785.

TAYLOR v. GORDON, 1738.—Service of subpoena being proved, Ordered,
attachment to issue unless appearance July Court next. Petition, for dedi-
mus to take answer. Dedimus issued. Ruled attachment to issue for
answer, and contempt to be paid and further process unless answer within
ten days of this Court. Attachment. The defendant being lately married
to Nicholas Ridgely, ordered, that he be made a party, and that attach-
ment of contempt issue against him and defendant, Ann. his wife. After
which, Nicholas came in accordingly with his wife, and answered.—Chan-
cery Records, lib. P. L. 1001-1088.