Glenham contra Statvile, 32 Car. 2. fo. 755.

THese being cross Causes,* the Defen∣dant Charles Statvile exhibited his Bill to be relieved against the Plaintiff and his Wife touching a Rent charge, for which the Plaintiff and his Wife by their Bill claims; and the Defendant Judith Statvile exhibited her Bill against the Di∣stresses, pretending the Lands out of which the Annuity issues is her Joynture: Which Page  194Causes being heard, a Trial at Law was directed to try, whether the Arrears of the Annuity was paid; upon Trial the Plaintiff obtained a Verdict for 475 l. and the Causes coming again to be heard, it was decreed, that the Defendants should pay the 475 l. with Interest and Costs, which Costs were afterwards taxed to 226 l. and that Report confirmed, and a Writ of Execution of the said Decree and Report left at the Defendants House, and Mony demanded, and for Non payment an Attachment issued against the Defendant Charles Statvile, who appeared and was examined, and certified, not in Contempt, but upon Arguing the Exceptions to the Certificate; the Defendant was ordered to pay the 475 l. and the said Costs, except 100 l. thereof which was remitted: But the Defendant did not pay the Mony, and the Plaintiffs Wife being since dead, he hath Administration, and is intituled to the Monies: But the Defendants refuse to pay the same, insisting, That the said Decree and Proceedings are abated, so that the Plaintiff now by his Bill seeks relief in the premisses, and that a Sub∣poena ad Revivend Respondend, or such other Process as the Matter should require, might be awarded.

The Defendant by Demurrer insists, That in case the Plaintiffs Bill shall be taken for an Original Bill, then it con∣tains no Equity, he having remedy at Law, and that the Plaintiff was a Defen∣dant in former Suits,* and by the course of the Court no Defendant, or any that re∣presents him, in case of an Abatement before the Decree or Final Judgment be signed and inrolled, can or ought to revive; and the Bill does not say, that any Decree or Final Judgment is signed and inrolled, and it is contrary to the Rules of the Court, to make a Decree against the Plaintiff upon his own Bill, and it would be meerly vexatious if the Plaintiff should revive his former Proceedings, which if revived the now Plaintiff can have no Final Judgment, contrary to the Prayer of his Answer to the Original Bill, which was, that he might be dismissed,* and the Plaintiffs demands by the New Bill are chiefly for Costs of Suits, which are ex∣tinguished by the death of the Plaintiffs Wife, and if he were intituled to a Bill of Revivor he could not revive for Costs, there being no Decree inrolled.

This Court allowed the Defendants De∣murrer, and dismist the Plaintiffs Bill of Revivor.