filed as an information, though having many of the features of a bill, cannot be sustained as a bill when dismissed as an information. The attorney general, failing by his information to make out a case on behalf of the public, cannot bring the relator forward as complainant at the hearing, as there can be no bill of complaint without a complainant.11, The peculiarities of informations are too few to justify any distinct examination, and they will therefore be considered under the general head of bills.12 § 65. Division of bills in equity. The most general division of bills is into those which are original and those which are not original.13 Original bills are 11 Attorney General v. Evart Booming Co., 34 Mich. 462. 12 For cases considering informations, see Attorney General v. Paterson & H. R. Co., 9 N. J. Eq. 527; State v. Lord, 28 Or. 529, 43 Pac. 474; Attorney General v. City of Dublin, 1 Bligh (N. S.) 312; Attorney General v. Eastlake, 45 Eng. Ch. 218; State v. Dayton & S. E. R. Co., 36 Ohio St. 434. 13 In Story, Eq. Pl. § 16, after making the above division of bills, it is said: "There is another class of bills which is of a mixed nature, and sometimes partakes of the character of both of the others. Thus, for example, bills brought for the purpose of cross-litigation, or of controverting or suspending or reversing some decree or order of the court or of obtaining the benefit of a former decree, or of carrying it into execution, are not considered as strictly a continuance of the former bill, but in the nature of original bills. And if these bills require new facts to be stated, or new parties to be brought before the court, they are so far strictly of the nature of supplemental bills. For all the objects of the present work, this last class may be treated as included in that of bills not original." Some authorities divide the several kinds of bills into (1) original bills; (2) bills not original; and (3) bills in the nature of original bills, though occasioned by former bills. Mitford, Eq. Pl. 33; 4 Minor, Inst. Com. & St. Law (2d Ed.) 1243 (1126). Those making the three classifications include, under the head of bills not original, (1) supplemental bills, (2) bills of revivor, and (3) bills of revivor and supplement; and under the head of bills in the nature of original bills, (1) a cross bill, (2) a bill of review, (3) a bill in the nature of a bill of review, (4) a bill to impeach a decree on the ground of fraud, (5) a bill to suspend or avoid the execution of a decree, (6) a bill to carry a decree into execution, (7) a bill in the nature of a bill of revivor, and (8) a bill in the those which relate to some matter not before litigated in the court by the same persons, standing in the same interests.14 As the name imports, such a bill is a bill which begins the suit or controversy.15 Bills not original are those which relate to some matter already litigated in the court by the same persons, and which are either an addition to or a continuance of an original bill, or both, or for the purpose of cross litigation, or of controverting, suspending, or reversing some decree or order of the court, or carrying it into execution.16 § 66. Divisions of original bills. Original bills praying relief have been rankea under three heads, namely: (1) Bills praying the decree or order of the court touching some right claimed by the complainant in opposition to the defendant; (2) bills of interpleader, where the person exhibiting the bill claims no right in opposition to the rights claimed by the persons against whom the bill is exhibited, but prays the decree of the court touching the rights of those persons for the safety of the person exhibiting the bill; (3) bills of certiorari, which pray a writ of certiorari in order to remove a cause from an inferior court of equity for the purpose of having it further proceeded in and decided in the superior court of equity to which the process is returnable. This last bill is of rare, if any, use in America, and was not of very frequent occurrence in England.17 Original bills not praying relief are of three kinds: (1) Bills to perpetuate the testimony of witnesses; (2) bills to examine nature of a supplemental bill. 4 Minor, Inst. Com. & St. Law (2d Ed.) 1262-1273 (1130-1141); Mitford, Eq. Pl. 33-36; Mitford & T. Pl. & Pr. in Eq. 128-130. To this latter group, it seems, should be added a supple mental bill in the nature of a bill of review. 14 Story, Eq. Pl. § 16; Cooper, Eq. Pl. 43; Mitford, Eq. Pl. 33. 15 Merwin, Eq. & Eq. Pl. 519. 16 Story, Eq. Pl. § 16; Mitford, Eq. Pl. 33. 17 Mitford, Eq. Pl. 36, 37; Cooper, Eq. Pl. 43; Story, Eq. Pl. § 18. Formerly, bills of certiorari were not infrequent in Virginia, in order to remove causes at law or in equity from the county or corporation into the circuit court. 4 Minor, Inst. Com. & St. Law (2d Ed.) 1259 (1128). witnesses de bene esse; (3) bills for the discovery of facts and documents within the knowledge or power of the person against whom the bill is exhibited.18 § 67. Division of bills not original. Bills not original are either (A) an addition to or continuance of an original bill; or (B) for the purpose of cross litigation or of controverting or suspending or reversing some decree or order of the court, or carrying it into execution. Of the former kind are: (1) A supplemental bill, which is merely an addition to the original bill, to supply some defect in its frame or structure; (2) a bill of revivor, which is a continuance of the original bill, to bring some new party before the court, when, by death or otherwise, the original party has become incapable of prosecuting or defending the suit, and the suit is, as it is in equity technically called, "abated,”—that is, suspended in its progress; (3) a bill both of revivor and supplement, which continues a suit upon an abatement, and supplies defects which have arisen from some event subsequent to the institution of the suit. Of the latter kind are: (1) A cross bill, exhibited by a defendant in the original suit against the complainant in that suit, touching some matter in litigation in the first bill; (2) a bill of review, which is brought to examine and reverse a decree made upon a former bill, which has been duly enrolled, and thereby become a record of the court; (3) a bill to impeach a decree upon the ground of fraud; (4) a bill to suspend the operation of a decree, in special circumstances, or to avoid it, on the ground of matter which has arisen subsequent to it; (5) a bill to carry a decree made in a former suit into execution; (6) a bill in the nature of a bill of review; (7) a bill in the nature of a bill of revivor; (8) a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill; (9) a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review.19 18 Story, Eq. Pl. § 19; Mitford, Eq. Pl. 36, 51, et seq.; Cooper, Eq. Pl. 43. 19 Story, Eq. Pl. §§ 20, 21; 4 Minor, Inst. Com. & St. Law (2d Ed.) 1262-1273 (1130-1141); Mitford, Eq. Pl. 34-36. Original bills praying relief are the most usual kind of bills, and therefore will be first considered. The other classes of bills will be hereinafter considered. § 68. (A) Bills praying relief. (B) Bills not praying relief. (A) An addition to or continu- (B) For purposes of cross litiga- (1) Bill touching some right claimed by complainant in opposition to defendant. (Most usual kind of bill.) (2) Bill of interpleader. (3) Bill of certiorari. (Rarely used.) (1) Bill to perpetuate testi mony. (2) Bill de bene esse. (3) Bill of discovery. (1) Supplemental bill. (2) Bill of revivor. (3) Bill of revivor and supplement. (1) Cross bill. (2) Bill of review. (3) Bill to impeach a decree for fraud. (4) Bill to suspend or avoid execution of a decree. (5) Bill to carry decree into execution. (6) Bill in nature of bill of review. (7) Bill in nature of bill of revivor. (8) Bill in nature of a supplemental bill. (9) Supplemental bill in nature of bill of review. The several parts of a bill-In general. In early times, bills were, in their structure, of great simplicity and brevity. It appears from the ancient records in the Tower of London that in some of the most ancient bills the complainant did not pray any relief or any process, but merely prayed the chancellor to send for the defendant, or to examine the defendant, and in others, in which relief was prayed, the prayer for process was various,-sometimes a writ of corpus cum causa, soinetimes a subpoena, and sometimes other writs.20 As the system of equity jurisprudence began to be more liberally administered, there arose a corresponding refinement in method, and a more elaborate exposition of every case; and by degrees the mere naked statement of facts was succeeded by a string of interrogatories, called the "interrogating part of the bill," the object of which was to sift more thoroughly the conscience of the defendant as to those facts; and afterwards there was added what is called the "charging part of the bill," inserted to meet the defense expected to be set up, and to obviate its effect by counter allegations which should destroy its validity.2 Lord Eldon said on this subject: "Formerly the bill contained very little more than the stating part. I have seen such a bill, with a simple prayer that the defendant may answer all the matters aforesaid, and then the prayer for relief. I believe the interrogating part had its birth before the charging part. Lord Kenyon never would put in the charging part, which does little more than unfold and enlarge the statement."22 It is ordinarily laid down that a bill in equity consists of niue parts, namely: (1) The address to the chancellor, by his official designation; (2) the introduction; (3) the premises, or stating part; (4) the confederating part; (5) the charging part; (6) the jurisdiction clause; (7) the interrogating part; (8) the prayer for relief; (9) the prayer for process.23 However, all that was ever essential to a bill was a proper statement of the facts which the complainant intended to prove, the specification of the relief which he claimed, and an indication of the legal grounds of such relief." 20 Story, Eq. Pl. §§ 11, 12; Cooper, Eq. Pl. 3, 4. 21 Story, Eq. Pl. § 12; Cooper, Eq. Pl. 4. 22 Partridge v. Haycraft, 11 Ves. 574. 23 Story, Eq. Pl. §§ 26-48; Comstock v. Herron, 45 Fed. 660; Supervisors of Fulton County v. Mississippi & W. R. Co., 21 Ill. 367; Merwin, Eq. & Eq. Pl. 519-522; Mitford, Eq. Pl. 42-47. 24 Langdell, Eq. Pl. § 55, cited with approval in Comstock v. Herron, |