MILLER V. ROGERS.
MILLER, Jr., and others, Assignees, etc.,
D. Penn81/l'Dania. June 1,1886.)
In Equity. Sur motion by the Metropplitan National Bank for leave to file a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill. J. H. McOreery and James Bredin, for the motion. D. D. Bruce and W. L. Chalfant. contra. ACHESON,.r. TIle Metropolitan National Bank,.a banking association under the laws of the United States, located and doing business in the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, moves the court for leave to file in thie cause a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill, agreeably to equity rule 57. The plaintiffs to the suit, as the record now stands, are the assignees in bankruptcy of Rogers & Burchfield; and the purpose of the suit is to set aside a deed of conveyance of real estate made by the bankrupts to Mary Ann Rogers, one of the defendants; the bill charging that it was a voluntary conveyance, and fraudulent and void as against the creditors of the bankrupts and said assignees. Pending the suit, the assignees sold this real estate at public auction to the said bank, and they have conveyed their title to the bank. The only objection urged against the allowance of the present motion is that, as the bank could not bring an original suit in this court against the defendants, they being citizens of Pennsylvania, so it cannot maintain the proposed bill, which, while partaking of the nature of a supplemental bill, is yet an original bill. Story, Eq. PI. §§ 349, 353. But while technically, and to' some intents, it may be an original bill, it is essentially supplementary to the 'bill of the'al;signees in bankruptcy. ld. §§, 345, 346 iMitf. & T. PI.& Pr. 158. Such a bill, by a party who haEPacquired the. plaintiff's title by transfer from him pendente lite, v.29F.no.10-26
is not, in a proper sense, the commencement of an original suit, but is rather a mere continuation of the former suit. Harrington v. Slade, 22 Barb. 166j Lloyd v. Johnes, 9 Ves. 37; Adams, Eq. *408; Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sum. 173. In this latter case, Judge STORY, discussing the effect of a transfer of the plaintiff's title pendente lite, says that the abatement ,in-equity which might thereby ensUe would not necessarily be a destruc-tion of the suit, like anabatenlent at law, but merely an interruption of, the suit; suspending its progress until the new party is brought before the court. And in Olarke v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164, it was held that the federal court has jurisdiction'of a bill by the administrator of a deceased plaintiff to revive a suit abated by the plaintifI's death, notwithstanding the administrator:is a citizen of the same state as the defendants, and the origin-al jurisdiction depended on the citizenship of the parties. The doctrine of the case is that, where the court has once acquired jurisdiction of the cause, a supplementary proceeding may be parties. The prinmaintained ,without regard to the citizenship of ciple is applicable here, and justly,SOj for thebank:was a creditor of the bankrupts, and thus; was directly!interested in the original bill; and for 'its protection, having bought theJitle of the assignees when exposed to public sale, it ought to have the benefit of the suit brought by them. Otherwise, and if driven to a new suit, the bank might, perhaps, be subjected to the bar of the statute of limitations. Section 5057, Rev. St. , And now, June 1, 1886, leave is granted to the Metropolitan National Bank to file its bill. .
PEIRCE, v. O'BRIEN and'
(Oirc'Ult (Jourt, N. D.1()'l/Ja, E.D. .
In determining the extent of a real property alienated by her husband solely in his life-UJP,e, the law,ln,force at the time of the alienation governs. " .' , ' '. . ,
chaser, or his sueces.sors, in good faith, supposing thllir grantor to have been , unmarried, an<l the mcreased caused thereby, are tQ be excluded; and this rule is not affecte<l by II change in the law makmg theeiltate of the widow a fee-simple instead of a life-estate.' '
. In determining, the value of; such a right, improvements made by the pur-
ALmNATED BY HUSBANn-:-IMPROVEMENTS BY PURCHASER·
In Equity. Ex;cepUQns to Noble &; Updegrq,jf andlff5!lderBfYTl,; Hurd, &; Daniels, for complainant. L. E. Fellow8, for defendants;
J. From theaverm,eots of the bill and answer, it appears that one George S. Peirce died on :theeleventh day of July, 1882, leaving complainant his widow,·they having been married on the ninth day of March, 1852; that from 1858·until February 2, 1869, the said George