|
|
|
|
|
|
|
340 AUSTIN v. COCHRAN,
who must, therefore, be permitted to support their own interests,
and to prosecute the suit for themselves, leaving the representa-
tives of the deceased creditors to come in and renew the prosecu-
tion of their claims as they may think proper, (b)
In ordinary cases, at common law, when a creditor dies pending
a suit which he had instituted against his debtor, it devolves, as a
duty, upon his executor or administrator to see, that it is season-
ably revived and prosecuted with effect; and so too in this court.
But in creditors' suits it would be attended with unnecessary; and,
in many respects, insufferable delay and expense, to consider the
whole suit as abated by the death of any one of the multitude of
creditors who may have been associated together as plaintiffs; for
there are not unfrequently instances in this court of creditors' suits
in which there have been more than an hundred creditors admitted
to come in and claim a right to participate in the distribution of
the deceased debtor's estate: and therefore, where a creditor's bill
has been filed by only one creditor, and he dies, after other credi-
tors have come in, as the whole costs are here first paid out of the
debtor's estate, the suit does not necessarily abate; but may be
sustained and prosecuted by any creditor who has come in, as
well as by any one of the surviving plaintiffs, where the bill has
been filed by several; and the representatives of the deceased
plaintiff or creditor, by merely filing the legal testimonials of their
being clothed with that character, may be permitted to take his
place as renewed parties without filing a bill of revivor, (c)
But although the suit cannot be suffered to abate, or to be even
unreasonably delayed; because of the occasional dropping off, by
death, or the payment of the claims of some of the troop of credi-
tor plaintiffs, who, having a common interest, have therefore been
permitted, or required to come in and make common cause in the
pursuit of their claims; yet as to the defendant debtor, or his re-
presentatives, who hold the fund upon which the charge is made,
the case is very different. It is obviously the interest of such de-
fendants to have every unsound claim rejected; because, after all
the creditors are satisfied, they are entitled to the surplus. And
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6) 1 Eq, Ca. Abr. 3, p, 7; Fallowes v. Williamson, 11 Ves. 810; Boddy v. Kent,
1 Meriv, 361; Burney v. Morgan, 1 Cond, Chan. Rep, 183; Houlditch v. Donegall,
1 Cond, Chan. Rep. 249; Mitf. Plea. 59; 1 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 68; Calvert on Par-
tits, 104, 107.—(c) Boddy v. Kent, 1 Meriv. 361; Dixon v. Wyatt, 4 Mad. 393;
Burney v. Morgan, 1 Cond. Chan. Rep, 183; Houlditch v. Donegall, 1 Cond. Chan.
Rep, 249; Handford v. Storie, 1 Cond. Chan. Rep. 414.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
