548 GRIFFITH v. BRONAUGH.

tevived in the mode prescribed by the act of 1820, ch. 161. That
met, however, only gives a new and more expeditious mode of pro-
ceeding to those who could, independently of its provisions, revive
by a proper bill of revivor. It is a general rule, that where a suit
abates, by the death of a party, before the final decree, the defend-
ant cannot have it revived; since no one can be compelled to
commence, renew, or revive a suit against another. After a decree
to account, by which both parties are made actors, or after a final
decree, a defendant may revive; because he may have an interest
in the execution of the decree. The good sense of the rule is,
that in every case where a defendant can derive a benefit from the
further proceeding, he may revive.(a) But it is very clear, that
this is not such a suit as this defendant can be allowed to revive.

The only object here, the suit having been terminated by abate-
ment, is to have the injunction dissolved so as to enable this defend-
ant to proceed at law. Which, according to the course of the
court, may be attained by a petition, as in this instance, praying
that the administrator of the deceased plaintiff may revive within
a stated time, or that the injunction stand dissolved. For, although
in strictness the whole proceedings are abated by the death of
either party, yet the injunction, being a judgment of the court,
continues in full force until it has been dissolved by the court
itself.(b)

Whereupon it is ordered, that the petition of the said defendant,
filed on the 17th of November 1821, be and the same is hereby
dismissed with costs. And it is further ordered, that the injunc-
tion heretofore granted in this case be dissolved after the 14th day
of March next, unless the said Luke Griffith, administrator of
the late Samuel G. Griffith, before that day proceed to revive the
said suit. Provided that a copy of this order, together with a
copy of the said petition filed on the 11th instant, be served on the
said Luke on or before the 2d of March next.

Upon a copy of this order the sheriff of Harford county made
return on oath, that Luke Griffith therein named resided out of the
State of Maryland. Upon which the case was again brought
before the court.

(a) Lord Stowell v. Cole, 2 Vern. 219; Williams v. Cooke, 10 Ves. 406; Hor-
wood v. Schmedes, 12 Ves. 311.—(b) Gilb. For. Rom. 198; 1 Newl. Chan. 229-
Eden. Inj. 93.