WALSH v. SMYTH.—3 BLAND. 13

* The plaintiff Robert Walsh does not ask for a rehearing,
and it is perfectly manifest that he must be fully sensible of 22
his not having a single shadow of a pretext to complain of having
been taken by surprise by this decree. After a lapse of thirty-
three years since the commencement of this suit by him, he surely
cannot now be allowed to say, that the decree has taken him un-
prepared for the controversy; or that he could now, if permitted,
obtain proof to establish the allegation of his bill. He therefore,
it is clear: must be held firmly bound by the decree in every way
whatever, subject only to an appeal.

It is alleged, that some of the defendants were dead long before
the passing of this decree. If so the suit abated as to them; and
if the plaintiff Walsh had deemed it necessary, for his benefit, to
have had the suit revived as against their representatives he might
have done so. But since he has set the case down for hearing
without calling for a revival of it against the representatives of the
deceased defendants, he cannot now complain of the total dissolu-
tion of the injunction as to them, as it was not in their power to
have revived this suit without his consent for any purpose. Griffith
v. Bronaugh, 1 Bland, 548. But the representatives of the de-
ceased defendants do not complain of anything, and the plaintiff
having failed to establish his case, the bill has been dismissed as
to all the defendants; and thus no one of them has been injured by
the decree, or subjected to any undue proportion of liability, or
obtained any advantages not common to them all, so far as their
interests may have been in any way connected. Manderille v.
Riggs, 2 Peters, 482.

The petitioner complains of the wrong done to his intestate; and
of the injury likely to be done to his creditors. But it is perfectly
clear, and indeed was admitted in the argument, that this suit
having abated b> the death of the petitioner's intestate, it was
totally at an end as to all his interests; and his representative
being no party to the suit cannot, in any way, whatever, be bound
or affected by the decree which has been passed after that abate-
ment.

The petitioner, therefore, can have no right to complain of the
decree in any respect, as his intestate's interests are not molested
by it. If it be true that the consideration of the bonds, by which
the petitioner's intestate became jointly bound with the plaintiff
Walsh, was unfounded and fraudulent, he may now avail himself
of such circumstances in any manner the law will allow, unembar-
rassed, *and entirely uninfluenced by this decree; and there
can be no occasion to set it aside to let in his proofs, and to re- 23
hear this case for any such purpose. And besides, for aught that
appears, or has been shewn, there are no assets real or personal,
which were the property of the late plaintiff Casenave, that can or