544 ARTICLE 16

This section relates to equity cases, and includes a proceeding where one of the parties
dies after decree but before appeal taken. Goldschmid v. Meline, 86 Md. 372; Thomas v.
Thomas, 57 Md. 509.

Under this section, it is not necessary that a suit be revived, it being a matter within
the discretion of the court. Case held to have been one in which the discretion not to
require a revival may have been properly exercised. Purchaser's title upheld against a
widow's claim of dower. Rowland v. Prather, 53 Md. 241.

Purpose, effect and construction of this section. This section applies to parties plaintiff
and defendant, but does not embrace a decree which has become dormant by lapse of
time. In such cases, a bill revivdr is necessary. Franklin v. Franklin, 1 Md. Ch. 344.

Defendants, or their representatives, may revive a suit in every case where they may
derive a benefit from further proceedings. Parties. Ridgely v. Bond, 18 Md. 449.

See notes to sec. 7.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 9. 1912, sec. 9. 1904, sec. 9. 1888, sec. 9. 1820, ch. 161, sec. 6.

9. If any representative of a deceased party shall fail to appear after
being summoned, within four days after the return day of the subpoena, or
shall fail to appear after notice by publication, the court may order the
appearance of such representative to be entered; to have the same effect as
if such representative had appeared in person and been made a party.
See notes to sec. 12.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 10. 1912, sec. 10. 1904, sec. 10. 1888, sec. 10. 1797, ch. 114, sec. 3.

1828, ch. 184.

10. Any representative of a deceased party who shall secrete himself,
or in any manner evade the service of any process issued against him, may,
on proof of that fact to the satisfaction of the court, be proceeded against
as if he were a non-resident defendant.
Cited but not construed in Buckingham v. Peddicord, 2 Bl. 453.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 11. 1912, sec. 11. 1904, sec. 11. 1888, sec. 11. 1820, ch. 161, sec. 5.

11. In all cases where any of the parties to a suit may die, and any
party to such suit or representative of a deceased party shall leave the State
before the process or notice which such death may render necessary is
served on him, he may be proceeded against as if he were a non-resident
defendant.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 12. 1912, 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 230 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, 1924, sec. 13. 1912, 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