By the 8th of Lord Brougham's Orders, it is ordered, "That when any defendant has been taken into 'custody upon attachment or other process for want ' of appearance to a bill of revivor, and such defend' and shall have been taken thereon, and shall refuse or neglect to enter an appearance to such bill with' in eight days after the return of such attachment, 'the plaintiff shall be intitled as of course, upon mo'tion or petition, to the common order to revive; and if the defendant cannot be found, so as to be ' taken upon such attachment, and a return of Non 'est inventus' shall have been made thereon, the 'plaintiff shall, upon producing such return and an 'affidavit that due diligence has been used in endeavouring to execute such attachment, and that there was good reason to believe that the defendant was in the county to which such attachment issued at 'the time of suing out the same, be also intitled as ' of course, upon motion or petition, at the end of ' eight days after the return of such attachment, to 'obtain the common order to revive; and that in ' either of such cases the order shall recite, as the 'ground for granting the same, that the defendant is in contempt, and that the time limited by the 'Court to shew cause against reviving the suit has 'expired." And by the 10th of the same Orders, "That if the defendant shall not, within eight days

સ

' after appearance to a bill of revivor, shew cause by 'plea, answer, or demurrer filed, the plaintiff shall < be intitled as of course, upon motion or petition, to 'the common order to revive: which order shall re 'cite as the ground for granting the same, that the 'time limited by the Court to shew cause against ' reviving the suit has expired." And by the 49th C. & L., "that it shall not be necessary in any bill ' of revivor, or supplemental bill, to set forth any of 'the statements in the pleadings in the original suit, 'unless the special circumstances of the case may "require it."

In the answer to a bill filed to revive a suit, and to prosecute the decree made in the suit, a defendant is not intitled to resist the plaintiff's right to revive and prosecute the decree, by stating matter which existed at the time of the decree, or which has arisen since; and such matter, if stated, is impertinent. When, after a decree for an account, the suit has become abated, a defendant who is interested in the account may file a bill to revive the suit and prosecute the decree, although he could not have filed the original bill. (Devaynes v. Morris, 1 My. & Cr. 213).

Where a sole plaintiff dies, the defendant cannot move that his personal representatives may revive within a given time, or that the bill may be dismissed. (Canham v. Vincent, 8 Sim. 277.) Where, on the death of a sole defendant, the plaintiff filed a bill of revivor and supplement against his heir execucutor, and devisee, but did not obtain an order to revive, and the devisee joined with the heir and exe

cutor in moving that the plaintiff might revive within a week, or that the suit might be dismissed,-the motion was refused with costs, on the ground of misjoinder, because the devisee, who was unaffected by the revivor of the suit, had joined in it. (Follond v. Lamotte, 10 Sim. 486).

The executor of a deceased plaintiff filed a bill of revivor, but did not obtain an order to revive; the defendant then moved that the executor might revive within a given time, or both bills be dismissed with costs, to be paid by the executor: the motion was granted as to the bill of revivor only. (Troward v. Bingham, 4 Sim. 483). A., and B. an infant filed a bill; B. attained 21, and gave notice to the parties that he repudiated the suit, and then died; A. revived the suit. The defendants answered the bill of revivor, and insisted that, B. having repudiated the suit, it ought not to be revived; and they then moved to discharge the order of revivor for irregularity: but the motion was refused, because they ought to have pleaded to, and not answered the bill of revivor. (Codrington v. Houlditch, 5 Sim. 286.) Motion before decree by the executor of a deceased defendant, that the plaintiff might revive the suit against him, or that the bill might be dismissed as against the deceased, granted. [Burnell v. The Duke of Wellington, 6 Sim. 461).

ADDENDA.

8th & 14th Ord. of C. & L.

A PARTY applying for leave to enter an appearance under the 8th Order, must, in his affidavit in support of the application, set forth the memorandum required to be at the foot of the subpoena by the 14th Order, and state that the copy of subpœna served contained such memorandum at the foot of it. (Betham v. Berry, 6 Jur. 92-R.; Tatham v. Williams, 1 Hare, 159).

In Tendall v. Burch, (6 Jur. 49-R.), the bill was filed, and a subpoena issued before the Ord. C. & L. came into operation; but the subpoena was re-served after this date, with the memorandum at the foot of it, informing the defendant of the consequence of his not entering an appearance, as required by the 8th Order. A motion on behalf of the plaintiff for leave to enter an appearance for the defendant, was granted on an affidavit of such re-service, and an affidavit by the plaintiff's solicitor, that he had inquired of the plaintiff's clerk in Court, who had informed him that no appearance had been entered for the defendant.

In Husham v. Dixon, (1 You. & Coll. N. C. 203), his Honor the Vice-Chancellor, after adverting to

the serious consequences which might arise from a strict adherence to the terms of this 8th Order in all cases, and after observing that it was not imperative upon the Court, said, that he thought that in this case some relaxation of it might be made. He therefore ordered that the plaintiff should be at liberty to enter an appearance within ten days, undertaking in the mean time to serve the defendant with a copy of the order made on the present motion within six days, unless the defendant should have appeared in the mean time.

12th Ord. C. & L.

A PARTY is entitled to his writ of fi. fa. on the lapse of the month mentioned in the 1st Order of the 10th May, 1839, notwithstanding he has not complied with the requisitions of the 12th Order of August, 1841. (Streater v. Whitmore, 6 Jur. 92 -R.)

21st & 22nd Ord. C. & L.

THE Court will not, under the 22nd of these Orders, give leave to file a traversing note where the subpoena to appear has not been served in the form required by the 14th Order. In order to enable the plaintiff to file a note under this Order, there must be an affidavit of appearance entered. (Treweek v. Turner, 1 You. & Coll. N. C. 112).

By the Order of the 11th April, 1842, the 22nd, and by consequence the 21st Order is suspended "until further order."