|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HALL 9. McPHERSON. 539
trustee of such insolvent to come in by a certain day to proceed to
reinstate the case, or that the bill be dismissed. Or, on the insol-
vency of a party his trustee may voluntarily come in by a supple-
mental bill in the nature of bill of revivor, and thus obtain the
right to prosecute or defend the suit for the benefit of the creditors
of the insolvent. (s)
This suit has, however, not only become defective by the insol-
vency of the defendant, who, as well as the plaintiff, was at that
time an actor in relation to the account, and the benefit which might
result from it; but it was afterwards totally abated by the death of
the defendant; and the plaintiff might, if he had thought proper,
have suffered it finally to go to rest in that manner. For, although,
in consequence of the late defendant's haying been made an actor
by the decree to account, his trustee or legal representative, might,
after his insolvency and death, have come in by bill and had the
suit revived; yet since it had, by operation of law and by casualty,
been brought to a final termination, the plaintiff was certainly un-
der no obligation to revive or renew the litigation. He has, how-
ever, by his supplemental bill, in the nature of a bill of revivor,
brought this case again before the court, and it now stands in the
situation of a bill, answer, and decree thereon for a mutual account
between partners in trade. And, therefore, the bill can now only
be dismissed in the same manner as after a similar decree between
the original parties; that is, upon notice to the opposite party by a
rule further proceedings.
Whereupon it is Ordered, that the defendant proceed in this case
on or before the fourth day of the next term, or the plaintiff may,
at any time thereafter, dismiss his bill with costs. And it is fur-
ther Ordered, that the register enter upon the docket, as at the
instance of the plaintiff, the rule further proceedings.
The rule was entered accordingly. After which, no further pro-
ceedings having been had by the defendant, the bill was on the 5th
of October, 1832, by order of the plaintiff's solicitor, dismissed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(s) Child v. Frederick, 1 P. Will. 266; Ex parte Ellis, 1 Atk. 101; Anonymous,
1 Atk. 263; Ex parte Berry, 1 Dick. 81; Hall P. Chapman, 1 Dick. 348; Sellers v.
Dawson, 2 Dick. 708; Rutherford v. Miller, 2 Anst. 458; Williams v. Kinder, 4
Ves. 887; Monteith v. Taylor, 9 Ves. 615; De Minckwitz v. Udney, 16 Ves, 466;
Randall v. Mumford, 18 Ves. 424; Boddy v.. Kent, 1 Meriv. 362; Rhode v. Spear,
4 Mad. 51 Wheeler v. Malins, 4 Mad. 171; Porter v. Cox, 5 Mad. 80; Garth v.
Thomas, 1 Cond. Chan, Rep. 410; Hibberson v. Fielding, 1 Cond. Chan, Rep. 502;
Sharp v. Hullett, 1 Cond. Chan. Rep. 558; Caddick v. Masson, 2 Cond. Chan. Rep.
252,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
