GRIFFITH v. BRONAUGH.— 1 BLAND. 515

of the rule is, that in every case where a defendant can derive a
benefit from the further proceeding, he may revive. Lord Stowell
v. Cole, 2 Vern. 219; Williams v. Cooke, 10 Ves. 406: Horwood v.
Schmedes, 12 Ves. 311. But it is very clear, that this is not such a
suit as this defendant can be allowed to revive.

The only object here, the suit having been terminated by abate-
ment, is to have the injunction dissolved so as to enable this de-
fendant to proceed at law. Which, according to the course of the
Court, may be attained by a petition, as in this instance, praying
that the administrator of the deceased plaintiff may revive within
a stated time, or that the injunction stand dissolved. For,
although in strictness the whole proceedings are abated by the
death of either party, yet the injunction, being a judgment of the
Court, continues in full force until it has been dissolved by the
Court itself. Gilb. For. Rom. 198; 1 Newl. Chan. 229; Eden
Inj. 93.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the petition of the said defendant,
filed on the 17th of November, 1821, be ami the same is hereby
dismissed with costs. And it is further ordered, that the injunc-
tion heretofore granted in this case be dissolved after the 14th day
of March next, unless the said Luke Griffith, administrator of the
late Samuel G. Griffith, before that day proceed to revive the said
suit. Provided that a copy of this order, together with a copy of
the said petition filed on the 11th instant, be served on the said
Luke on or before the 2d of March next.

Upon a copy of this order the sheriff of Harford County made
return on oath, that Luke Griffith therein named resided out of
the State of Maryland. Upon which the case was again brought
before the Court.

* BLAND, C., 19th March, 1829.—It is a general rule of
this Court, that the legal representatives of a deceased party 549
must be served with notice to revive the suit within a limited time
before the injunction can be dissolved. Duke of Chandos v.
Talbot, Select Ca. Chan. 24. Bat this rule must be relaxed to meet
the justice of the ease, and accommodated to the exigency of cir-
cumstances. Eden Inj. 40, 66; 1 Fow. Ex. Pro,. 287. Where it
was shewn, that the legal representatives of the deceased were
numerous, much dispersed, and not well known, and that it would
be difficult, if not impossible, to serve any order upon them; it was
on motion ordered, that unless the representatives of the com-
plainant should come in before the end of the next term and cause
the suit to be revived, the injunction should stand dissolved.
Carter v. Washington, I Hen. & Mun. 203; Kenner v. Hord, 1 Hen.
& Mun. 204. In the case under consideration it appears, that the
order could not be served within the State; on consideration of