CHANCERY. 439

An. Code, sec. 12. 1904, sec. 12. 1888, sec. 12. 1799, ch. 79, sec. 3. 1820, ch. 161, sec. 5.

12. A bill of revivor or supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of
revivor may be filed instead of a suggestion of the death of the party,
and notice thereof shall be given to the party against whom the same may
be filed, if a resident of this State, by subpoena, or service of a copy of such
bill of revivor or supplemental bill, as the court may direct; or if the party
be a non-resident, or secrete himself, or evade the service of the summons or
copy, or if the residence of the party be unknown, then notice by publica-
tion may be given as against non-resident defendants.

This section shows that secs. 1, 2 and 224 do not abrogate the mode of reviving
a suit by bill of revivor. Sinclair v. Auxiliary Realty Co., 99 Md. 232. And see
Hall v. Hall, 1 Bl. 130.

Cited but not construed in Neale v. Hagthrop, 3 Bl. 573.
See notes to sec. 1.

An. Code, sec. 13. 1904, sec. 13. 1888, sec. 13. 1831, ch. 311, sec. 14. 1843, ch. 40.

13. No suit in equity shall abate by the marriage of any of the parties,
but on application of any of the parties the court may, on such terms and
notice as it shall deem proper, allow and order any amendment in the
pleadings, and the making of any new or additional parties that such
marriage may render necessary or proper.

Cited but not construed in Hall v. Hall, 1 Bl. 132, note (e).

Alimony.

An. Code, sec. 14. 1904, sec. 14. 1888, sec. 14. 1777, ch. 12, sec. 14.

14. The courts of equity of this State shall and may hear and deter-
mine all causes for alimony, in as full and ample manner as such causes
could be heard and determined by the laws of England in the ecclesiastical
courts there.

In states (such as Maryland) where alimony is regarded as a maintenance for
the wife's support out of the husband's income, and not as a division of property,
equity has jurisdiction to modify the part of a decree providing for alimony,
whether a divorce a vinculo or a mensa be granted. When alimony is so regarded,
the wife's remarriage ordinarily relieves the former husband of the payment of
alimony. When a husband and wife agree as to alimony and the court regards the
agreement as fair and proper, it may be incorporated in the decree; the court has
the same control, however, over such decree as if there had been no agreement.
Features of agreement the court will not modify. In divorce cases, courts of
equity are governed by the principles of the Ecclesiastical courts of England so far
as they are consistent with our Code. Emerson v. Emerson, 120 Md. 589 (cj. dis-
senting opinion).

When the allegations of a bill are sufficient to support either form of divorce,
they are sufficient to support a bill for alimony alone. No matter will be received
as a sufficient ground for alimony alone which would not be a sufficient foundation
in England for granting a divorce a mensa, together with its incident alimony.
Outlaw v. Outlaw, 118 Md. 502.

A wife may sue for alimony although she does not ask for divorce, but the allega-
tions of the bill must be sufficient to support a divorce. Alimony pendente lite
will not be allowed a wife who has ample means. Amount of alimony where there
are children. Hood v. Hood, 138 Md. 360.

Alimony will not be allowed unless there is a sufficient ground for a divorce.
Nature of alimony. Polley v. Polley, 128 Md. 63.

To give jurisdiction under this section, one of the parties must be domiciled in
Maryland. The fact that the husband has property in this state is immaterial.
Definition and nature of alimony. Keerl v. Keerl, 34 Md. 25; Wallingford v.
Wallingsford, 6 H. & J. 488. (Both cases decided prior to the adoption of sec. 16.)