HALL r. McPHERSON.—3 BLAND. 523

had been thus discharged under the insolvent law, and the suit
having been revived by a supplemental bill against his trustee
alone, this application by the plaintiff to dismiss his bill presents
questions of much importance in practice, and of a nature involv-
ing a consideration of some of the positive provisions of the insol-
vent law, and of the principles arising out of those provisions.

In all cases where a defendant is chargeable with the rents and
profits of property; and wherever it may be necessary to ascertain
the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff, it is of course to refer
the case to the auditor, with directions to state such an account as
the nature of the case may require, and such other accounts as
either party may desire. But a reference to the auditor in such
cases does not, of itself, place the parties in the reciprocal relation
to each other of plaintiff and defendant, as on a bill for an account
upon a dealing in trade, as in this instance, where, after a decree
to account, both parties are considered as actors in relation to such
account; and the final decree may be in favor of the one or the
other, according as the balance may appear. And, therefore, if
the suit should abate alter such a decree, by the death of either
plaintiff or defendant, the surviving party, or the representatives
of the deceased may have it revived by a bill of revivor; because,
the defendant, after such a decree, has as direct an interest in the
continuance of the suit as the plaintiff, and may ultimately be as
essentially benefited by it. Kent v. Kent, Prec. Cha. 197; Stowell
v. Cole, 2 Vern. 219, 297; Dones' Case. 1 P. Will. 263; Hollings-
head's Case, 1 P. Will. 744; Anonymous, 3 Atk. 991; Thorn v. Pitt,
Sele. Ca. Cha. 54: Dinwiddie v. Bailey, 6 Ves. 143; Williams v.
Cooke, 10 Ves. 400; Horwood v. Schmedes. 12 Ves. 311; Bayley v.
Edwards, 3 Swan. 703; Bodkin v. Claney, 1 Ball. & B. 217; Smith
v. Marks, 2 Rand. 449; Moreton v. Harrison, 1 Bland, 499; 1825,
ch. 158.

But, as in such cases, that reciprocal interest in the suit which
the decree to account gives to each of the parties enables either
of them to revive and continue it, so the plaintiff cannot, as under
other circumstances, be allowed at his pleasure, after such a de-
cree, to dismiss his bill on the payment of costs; but can only get
rid of it by a final decree, or by availing himself of the negligence
and default of the defendant alter he has been called upon to pro-
ceed; and therefore, after a decree which thus gives the defendant
*an interest in the further prosecution of the suit, the plain-
tiff can only have entered upon the docket the common rule 535
iurther proceedings, so as thereby to lay a foundation for obtain-
ing leave to dismiss his bill at the next term. Skip v. Warner, 3
Atk. 558; Carrington v. Holly, Dick. 280; Anonymous, 11 Ves. 169;
Lashley v. Hogg, 11 Ves. 602; 1 Harr. Pra. Cha. 605.

In England any trader may, under certain circumstances, be
subjected by his creditors to the operation of the bankrupt law so