14 WALSH v. SMYTH.—3 BLAND.

may be in any manner covered or protected by this injunction,
even if it were made perpetual.

It has been urged, that so much of this decree as dissolves the
injunction has been improvidently made; because it was awarded
in a case to which the intestate of the petitioner had been a party;
and that since his death it has been dissolved without his represen-
tative having been made a party, or being notified to revive.

It is true, that an abatement of a suit, in which an injunction
had been granted, does not in strictness immediately and of itself
dissolve the injunction; because the injunction, as a judgment of
the Court, gives a present vested right which must stand until re
versed or revoked by the Court itself. And it is therefore, a gene-
ral rule, founded on the liberality of the Court, that, in all such
cases of abatement, to prevent the representatives of the deceased
from being taken by surprise, notice must be given to them to
revive, or that the injunction be dissolved. Chandos v. Talbot, Sel.
Ca. Cha. 24; White v. Hayward, 2 Ves. 461; Forum Rom. 198; Eden
Inj. 93; 2 Mad. Cha. 533; 1 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 287.

In this case the injunction has been dissolved, without any such
notice; and, therefore, the only question now is, whether, looking
to all the circumstances of this case, it might have been dissolved
without any actual notice to the legal representatives of the late
plaintiff Casenave?

According to the English authorities, such a notice, when re
quired to be given, is in general very peremptory and short, usual
ly not more than a week. Stuart v. Ancell, 1 Cox, 411; Hill v.
Hoare, 2 Cox, 50. But the deceased party may have, in fact, no
legal representatives, or they may be numerous and dispersed, or
they may reside abroad, so that it would be impossible or very
difficult to give them actual notice. Carter v. Washington, 1 Hen.
and Mun. 203. Where the representative was not a resident of
this State, I have ordered notice to be entered on the docket to
revive before the next term, or that the injunction then stand dis-
solved; and in that case I declared, that * the lapse of time,
nine years since the abatement, should be taken into con
sideration. Griffith v. Bronaugh,! Bland, 547.

But here the abatement took place more than thirty-two years
ago, and there is strong reason to believe, that James Walker, the
administrator of Casenave, must have known of the institution of
this suit; because it is stated in the award exhibited by the peti-
tioner, that the bonds, the consideration of which was the subject
put in issue by this bill, "were given by the said Robert Walsh as
agent of the said Casenave & Walker, of whom the said James
Walker was surviving partner." Considering Walker then an ad-
ministrator, as surviving partner, and as joint cestui que me with
Casenave, the presumption seems to be conclusive, that he must
have been fully aware of the situation of this suit, and of the ex-