NEALE v. HAGTHROP—3 BLAND. 581

was, in truth, and only deducible from the deed of trust of the
17th of August, 1797. Wherefore he prayed, that the agreement,
filed on the 12th of February, 1827, might be rescinded and with-
drawn. Upon which the Chancellor suggested to the solicitors,
that as the case had abated by the death of the defendant Chit-
tenden, theie could be no further proceedings had until it had
been revived against his legal representatives.

Charles Frenour, by his petition, filed on the 29th of November,
1831, stated, that prior to the execution of the deed of trust of
the 17th of August, 1797, the late Anthony Hook had by a deed
bearing date on the 8th of May, 1797, conveyed the one-half of
the lor on Alice Anna street to John Hook, from whom it had
passed to this defendant Edward Hagthrop, under whom this peti-
tioner claimed. Whereupon he prayed, that all such of the pro-
ceedings, in this * case, as related to the one-half of the lot 599
so claimed In him should be stricken out, &c.

BLAND, C., 29th November, 1831.—Ordered, that the matter of
the foregoing petition stand over until the case shall have been
revived and brought before the Court for a final hearing.

After which the plaintiff, by his petition, stated, that the con-
troversy in relation to the ten acre lot was then ready for final
hearing, and the parties interested all before the Court; that the
controversy in relation to the lot on Alice Anna street was not
then ready lor final hearing, inasmuch as one of the parties in
interest was not before the Court. And as the controversy in rela-
tion to the ten acre lot may be finally determined without injury
or inconvenience, leaving the property on Alice Anna street for
future adjudication. And as the matters now remaining in dis-
pute, and the difficulties in the way of a final decision, in rela-
tion to the Alice Anna street property, present no obstacles to a
final decision in relation ro the ten acre lot; and inasmuch as the
parlies are in needy circumstances; and also as the property can-
not be improved until the right 1o it is finally settled; the peti-
tioner prayed, that the Court would proceed to a final decision
upon the questions in regard to the ten acre lot, retaining for
future adjudication so much of the controversy as relates to the
property on Alice Anna street.

BLAND. C., 17th February, 1832.—Where there area plurality
of defendants, and one of them dies, who had an interest which
does not devolve upon the surviving parties, but which might, in
all respects, have been separated by that final decree which the
Court would have passed; and which interest of the deceased is of
such a nature as not necessarily to involve an expression of the
judgment of the Court upon that which does obviously constitute