after a decree, must not seek to vary the principles of the decree, but, taking that as a basis, seek merely to supply any omissions here may be in it, or in the proceedings which lead to it, so as to enable the court to give full effect to its decision.25

§ 827a. Must be germane to original bill.

The supplemental bill must be germane to the original bill.25

$ 828. Change of interest.

Where, subsequently to the filing of an original bill, some event happens which, without abating the suit, gives an interest in the matter in dispute to a person not a party to the bill, or occasions alterations in the interest of any of the parties, the defect may be supplied by a supplemental bill.27 If a complainant suing in his own right makes such an alienation of his property as to give the alienee an interest in the subject-matter of the suit, but not at the same time to deprive himself of all right in the question, he must bring the alienee before the court by supplemental bill, or the alienee may himself file a supplemental bill against the original complainant and the other parties to the suit to have the benefit of the proceedings.28 If

the original bill was filed. Heffron v. Knickerbocker, 57 Ill. App. 340, citing 2 Daniell, Ch. Pl. & Pr. (4th Ed.) 1515, notes.

25 O'Hara v. Shepherd, 3 Md. Ch. 306; Caldwell v. First Nat. Bank, 89 Ill. App. 448; Ramey v. Green, 18 Ala. 771.

26 Miller v. Cook, 135 Ill. 190, 25 N. E. 756; Dickson v. Poindexter, Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 721; Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 6 Wall. (U. S.) 742.

27 2 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 63; Story, Eq. Pl. § 336; Jones v. Jones, 3 Atk. 217; Groves v. Clarke, 1 Keen, 132; Murray v. Elibank, 10 Ves. 84; Mole v. Smith, 1 Jac. & W. 665; Bowie v. Minter, 2 Ala. 406. See Atwood v. Shenandoah Valley R. Co., 85 Va. 966, 9 S. E. 748; Copen v. Flesher, 1 Bond, 440, Fed. Cas. No. 3,211; Fisher v. Holde, 84 Mich. 494, 47 N. W. 1063; Dow v. Jewell, 18 N. H. 340, 45 Am. Dec. 371; Fletcher v. Jackson, 23 Vt. 581, 56 Am. Dec. 98; Gove v. Lyford, 44 N. H. 525; Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumn. 173, Fed. Cas. No. 6,802; Pue v. Pue, 4 Md. Ch. 386; North American Coal Co. v. Dyett, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 115; Sedgwick v. Cleveland, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 287.

28 2 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 64, 65; Binks v. Binks, 2 Bligh, 593; Lunt v. Stephens, 75 Ill. 507.

a sole complainant, suing in his own right, is deprived of his whole interest in the matters in question by an event subsequent to the institution of the suit, as in the case of a bankrupt or insolvent debtor whose whole property is transferred to assignees, or in case such a complainant assigns his whole interest to another, the complainant being no longer able to prosecute for want of interest, and his assignee claiming by a title which may be litigated, the benefit of the proceedings cannot be obtained by a supplemental bill, but must be sought by an original bill in the nature of a supplemental bill; but this rule applies only to cases in which the complainant has become entitled to the interest of the original complainant by a separate, independent title. It does not apply where the new party comes in by the same title as the original complainant.29 If the interest of a complainant suing in autre droit entirely determines by death or otherwise, and some other person thereupon becomes entitled to the same property under the same title, as in case of an executor or administrator upon the determination of an administration durante minori aetate, or pendente lite, the suit may be likewise added to or continued by supplemental bill.30 Where there is a transfer of interest pendente lite, a supplemental bill may be filed by or against the purchasers.31 One not a party to a suit in equity, claiming an interest therein, has no right to interfere with the proceedings without filing a supplemental bill to make himself a party.32

29 Mitford, Eq. Pl. 65; 2 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 66; Lloyd v. Johnes, 9 Ves. 37; Walter Baker & Co. v. Baker, 89 Fed. 673; Ross v. City of Ft. Wayne, 24 U. S. App. 113, 63 Fed. 466; Root v. Woolworth, 150 U. S. 401; Curtis Davis & Co. v. Smith, 105 Fed. 949. See Bowie v. Minter, 2 Ala. 406.

30 2 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 65; Story, Eq. Pl. § 340; Mitford, Eq. Pl. 64. See Toulmin v. Hamilton, 7 Ala. 362.

31 Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumn. 173, Fed. Cas. No. 6,802.

32 Ball v. Tunnard, 6 Madd. 275; Watt v. Crawford, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 470; Greenwich Bank v. Loomis, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 70; Foster v. Deacon, 6 Madd. 59; Bozon v. Bolland, 1 Russ. & M. 69. If a person pendente lite takes an assignment of one of the parties to a suit, he may, if he pleases, make himself a party to the suit by supplemental

If there has been no decree, the suit may proceed after the supplemental bill has been filed in the same manner as if the original complainant had continued such, except that the defendants must answer the supplemer tal bill, and either admit or put in issue the title of the new complainant; but if a decree has been obtained before the event on which such supplemental bill becomes necessary, although the decree be only a decree nisi, there must be a decree on the supplemental bill declaring that the complainant in that bill, is entitled to stand in the place of the complainant in the original bill, and to have the benefit of the proceedings upon it, and to prosecute the decree and take the steps necessary to render it effectu al.33

It is to be observed that a voluntary alienation pendente lite is not permitted to affect the rights of the other parties if the suit proceeds without disclosure of the fact, except as the alienation may disable the party from performing the decree of the court, as in the case of an assignment by a mortgagee of his interest in the mortgage, pending a suit to redeem, in which case the assignee must be brought before the court by a supplemental

bill, but he cannot, by petition, pray to be admitted to take part as a party defendant. All that the court will do is to make an order that the assignor shall not take the property out of the court without notice. Hazleton Tripod-Boiler Co. v. Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 72 Fed. 326. 88 Story, Eq. Pl. § 340, citing Mitford, Eq. Pl. 64, 65; Brown v. Martin, 3 Atk. 218. "With respect to the right to file a supplemental bill after final decree, it may be said that the rule is the same as in case of bills of revivor. Such bills, it seems, may be filed as well after a final decree as before, if a person who has succeeded to the interest of one of the original parties to the suit, in such manner as to entitle him to the full benefit of the decree, finds it necessary to invoke further action on the part of the court to obtain such benefit. Indeed, a person entitled to the benefit of a decree by acquiring an interest in the subject-matter of the controversy subsequent to the decree is not, as it seems, entitled to invoke the aid of the court or take further action until he has made himself a party by supplemental bill, and has brought in the representatives or successors in interest of other original parties, plaintiff or defendant. Daniell, Ch. Pl. & Pr. (5th Ed.) 1525-1537; Sedgwick v. Cleveland, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 287; Van Hook v. Throckmorton, 8 Paige (N. Y.) 33; Binks v. Binks, 2 Bligh, 593, 594; Owings' Case, 1 Bland (Md.) 409." Secor v. Singleton, 41

Fed. 725.

bill. It sometimes happens, however, that, pending a suit, an alienation by some of the parties takes place without the knowledge of the parties conducting the suit, or without their thinking it necessary to bring the alienee before the court. In such case, unless the alienee can be protected by the ordinary course of applying for an order that the alienor may not take the fund he is entitled to in the suit out of court, without notice to him, he (the alienee) may make himself a party to the suit by supplemental bill against the other parties.34 If, by any event, the whole interest of a defendant is entirely determined, and the property has become vested in another by a title not derived from the former party, as in case of succession to a bishopric, the benefit of the suit against the person becoming entitled by the event described must also be obtained by original bill in the nature of a supplemental bill, though if the defendant whose interest is thus determined is not the sole defendant, the new bill is supplemental as to the rest of the suit, and is so termed and considered, but if the interest of a defendant is not determined, and only becomes vested in another by an event subsequent to the institution of a suit, as in the case of alienation by deed or devise, or by bankruptcy or insolvency, the defect in the suit may be supplied by supplemental bill, whether the suit is become defective merely, or abated as well as defective.35 But the distinction is constantly to be borne in mind between cases of voluntary alienation and cases of involuntary alienation, as by the insolvency or bankruptcy of the defendant. In the latter cases, the assignee must be made a party; in the former he may or may not, at the election of the complainant.30

$ 829. Supplemental bill as defense to cross bills, and in avoidance of plea.

With respect to a matter of defense which arises after the

34 2 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 65; Foster v. Deacon, Mad. & Geld. 59.

35 2 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 66; Story, Eq. Pl. § 342; Mitford. Eq. Pl. 68; Sedgwick v. Cleveland, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 290.

36 Story, Eq. Pl. § 342; Sedgwick v. Cleveland, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 290.

(897)

cause is at issue, the defendant cannot avail himself of the defense by plea or answer, but must make the same the subject of a cross bill; and so where the complainant in a bill would assert such matter of defense to a cross bill, it is held that the proper mode is by a supplemental bill.37

§ 830. Parties to supplemental bills.

Where the purpose of a supplemental bill is to bring before the court any new matter arising since the filing of the original bill, the defendants to the original bill ought to be made parties to the supplemental bill.38 But, in general, if new parties are brought before the court upon a supplemental bill, the original defendants need not be made parties to the supplemental bill unless they have an interest in the supplemental matter, or their interests require that the new defendant should be made

a party to the suit.89 A mere formal party to the original bill, whose rights or interests are not affected by the new matter charged in the supplemental bill, need not be made a party to it.10 Where a person acquires the interest of a party in the

40

37 Jenkins v. International Bank, 111 Ill. 462. It is also held that matters in avoidance of a plea arising since the filing of the bill should be presented by supplemental bill. Chouteau v. Rice, 1 Minn. 106 (Gil. 83), saying: "The prior matter was indispensable for the explanation of that which followed. It is not because it was not discovered before the original bill was filed that it is properly stated by way of supplement, but because it could not possibly be used for the purpose for which it is brought forward till afterwards. Story, Eq. Pl. § 335; 1 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 42." See supra, § 385.

38 2 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 68; Jones v. Jones, 3 Atk. 217; Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Seymour, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 538.

39 Story, Eq. Pl. §§ 334, 343; Mitford, Eq. Pl. 76; Bignall v. Atkins, 6 Madd. 369; Jones v. Howells, 2 Hare, 342; Parker v. Parker, 9 Beav. 144. See, for full consideration of parties to supplemental bills, Wilkinson v. Fowkes, 9 Hare, 193.

40 Mitford, Eq. Pl. 76; Brown v. Martin, 3 Atk. 217; Greenwood v. Atkinson, 5 Sim. 419; Bignall v. Atkins, 6 Madd. 369; Allen v. Taylor, 3 N. J. Eq. 435, 29 Am. Dec. 721; Ensworth v. Lambert, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 605; Calwell v. Boyer, 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 136. If the supplemental bill has been rendered necessary by the alteration or acquisition of interest happening to a defendant, or if a person comes into esse