HALL v. HALL.

bill of revivor. But it is a new course of proceeding, which can
only be used in place of a mere naked bill of revivor, by which the
person in whom the title is vested, is the sole fact to be ascertained,
and nothing more. It can be resorted to in no case, except that
of a devisee, where a proper bill of revivor will not lie; nor can it
be used in any case for the purpose of performing the office of a
mere bill of revivor, but where an abatement has happened by
death ;(b) for, it is expressly confined to the case of a bill in
chancery, where " either or any of the parties shall die or shall
have died." And not being repugnant to, nor having superseded
any other mode of proceeding; nor authorized or contemplated
the revival of a suit in any case where it was before deemed illegal
or unnecessary to have it revived; it follows, that it can apply to
no case like the present, where the suit has been abated by the
marriage of a female plaintiff; nor can it authorize or require a
revival on the marriage of a female defendant, which, not operating
as an abatement, did not call for a revival ;(c) nor can it apply to
any case, except that of a devisee, where, because of the new party's

(b) It seems to have been the ancient practice of this court, in such cases of abate-
ment, to enter upon the docket a suggestion of the death of the party; and then, as
a matter of course, to add, "Leave given to file a bill of revivor;" in all such cases
as might be revived, ( Wilmot v. Taylor, 1771, Chan. Pro. lib. W. K. No. 1, page 31—
a similar entry 1762, Chan. Pro. lib. D. D. No. J. page 57.) But this practice was
altered.

My tern, 1806.—KILTY, Chancellor.—Ordered, that where an entry has been made
on the docket of "Leave to file a Bill of Revivor," in any case which ought to abate
by the death of a party, the said entry be stricken out, and the suit entered " abated."
And that such suit be not brought forward or continued on the docket until a bill of
revivor shall be filed;—and that in future cases the entries be made according to this
order. The Chancellor considering, that the provision in the act of 1785, ch. 80, on
this subject, extends only to suits at law

(c) The act of 1831, ch. 311, a. 14, declares, " that no suit in equity shall
abate by the marriage of any of the parties," &c., which, it is presumed, must be
construed to mean any of the parties, plaintiffs; and that, although the suit
may have been actually abated by the marriage of a female plaintiff yet that
it may, as therein prescribed, be revived.

MANNING v. MILLS, 1722.—Bill abated, with costs, by reason of the complainant's
intermarriage with one Combs.—Chancery Records, lib. P. L. 785.

TAYLOR v. GORDON, 1728.—Service of subpoena being proved, Ordered, attachment
to issue unless appearance July court next. Petition for dedimus to take answer.
Dedimus issued. Ruled attachment to issue for answer, and contempt to be paid and
further process unless answer within ten days of this court. Attachment. The
defendant being lately married to Nicholas Ridgety, ordered, that he be made party,
and that attachment of contempt issue against him and defendant, Ami, his wife.
After which, Nicholas came in accordingly with Ms wife, and answered.—Chancery
Records, lib. P. L. l001—1088.