HALL v. HALL. 133

not claiming by operation of law only, a mere bill of revivor will
not lie; nor can it be resorted to by a defendant as a means of
reviving the suit in any case, except after a decree when he can
derive a benefit from the further proceedings and the plaintiff
neglects to revive: for no man can be compelled to revive and
prosecute a suit, who can have no possible advantage from it.(d)
And as it cannot be presumed, that the mode of proceeding pre-
scribed by this law was intended to stand as an addition to any
pre-existing and similar mode of proceeding, which was, in its
nature, more cheap, simple, and expeditious; it therefore cannot
be considered as having been intended to apply to any case of an
abatement, after a decree, where the suit may and ought to be
revived by a subpoena scire facias.(e)

It must also be recollected, that the form of proceeding, under
this act of assembly, as laid down in the case of Lobes v. Monkery
refers only to a case where the representative of a deceased party
applies to be admitted in his place; for, the act evidently contem-
plates a different mode of proceeding, where the surviving party
proposes to revive the suit against the representatives of a deceased
party. But as it is sufficiently obvious, that a suit cannot be revived
in the mode prescribed by this act, which has been abated, as in
this instance, by the marriage of a female plaintiff,

It is therefore ordered, that Ais petition be dismissed, with costs,
to be taxed by the register.

Whereupon Bayliss and wife filed a bill of revivor, stating the
fact of their marriage, which being admitted, and an answer to
the bill of revivor, for that purpose, having been dispensed with,
by consent, and the case considered as having been thus revived,
it was brought before the court accordingly upon its merits.

1st January, 1827.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case standing
ready for hearing, and the solicitors of the parties having been*
fully heard, the proceedings were read and considered.

This suit has been instituted to recover a legacy given by the
late Thomas Hall to his son William W. Hall, the late plaintiff.
This Thomas Hall, in the lifetime of his wife, had, besides the
late complainant, William W. Hall, seven other children; and was
then in possession of personal property to a considerable amount in

(d) 1 Mont. Dig. 303; 2 Mad. Chan. 526; Beams' Plea. 287.—(e) I Harr. Pra
Chan. 669; 2 Fow. Ex. Pra. 419; Mitf, PL 69.