See Vicar.

46. Where a mortgagee afligns without the mortgagor's joining, the heir of the mortgagor, on preferring a bill to redeem, has no occafion to bring the original mortgagee before the court, for the affignee, as standing in his place, will be decreed to convey. 2 Atk. 39. 1740. Hill v. Adams.

47. Bill to redeem against the defendant, who had notice of the plaintiff's title, but bought of the Marquis of Wharton, who had no notice; the objection allowed for not bringing the reprefentative of the marquis before the court, otherwife the defendant would be deprived of that defence. 2 Atk. 139. 1740. Lowther v. Carlion.

48. Bill of foreclosure against a tenant for life, and the first remainder man in tail; the ufual decree was made; the time for redemption being elapfed, the tenant in tail releafed the equity of redemption, fo that the decree was never made abfolute. Held binding on thofe in remainder, it being Tufficient to make the first tenant in tail party to a bill of foreclosure. Ambl. 564. 1769. Reynholdfon v. Perkins.

49. A fhare of Covent Garden playhouse having been mortgaged, the mortgagee affigned the mortgage to a trustee, in trust for three perfons, who contributed equal proportions of the money; one of the three filed a bill to foreclofe the equity of redemption. The court was of epinion that one could not foreclofe without making the other two parties. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 368. 1784. Lowe v. Morgan.

50. In a bill by a fecond mortgagee to redeem the first mort gage, the mortgagor or his heirs must be parties. Where the heir is abroad the court cannot proceed. 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 276. 1787.

Fell v. Brown.

See Pleading.

51. It is not neceffary to make one joint-owner a party to a bill against a factor, refpecting the moiety belonging to the other joint-owner. 1 Vef. jun. 417. 1 Vef. jun. 417. 1792. Weymouth v. Boyer.

52. Timber purchased for a colliery, before it was applied to the use of the colliery, fome of the owners retired; and it was paid for by thofe only who remained; the former owners are not neceflary parties to a fuit by thofe who remained, against the vendor on account of that fale. 2 Vefjun. 317. 1794. Maffey

v. Davis.

53. One part-owner of a fhip, cannot bring a bill on behalf of himself and the other part-owners, but they must be all parties. 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 38. 1788. Moffat v. Farquharfon.

54. Bill by fome of the refiduary legatees, on behalf of themfelves and the other devifees; all the refiduary devifees must be parties. 3 Bro, Ch. Rep. 365. 1791. Parfons v. Neville.

55. A refiduary 1-gatee need not be a party to a bill for a fpecific legacy. i Ves. jun. 313. 1791. Wainwright v. Wa

terman.

Vide Vin, Abr. tit. Copybold. (X. c).

Lord of the

56. Bill does not lie against feveral tenants of a manor for Manor. quit rents. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 200. 1783. Bouverie v. Prentice. Vide Debtors, Pleading.

Obligor.

57. Per Lord Chancellor.-It is not neceffary, in every cafe of Obligee. affignments, where all the equitable intereft is affigned over, to make the perfon who has the legal intereft a party; but if an obligee has affigned over the bond, and a prefumption of its being fatisfied arifes from the great length of time, as in the present cafe, where the bond was given by Sir James Harrington's father in 1709, and affigned over in 1717, and no demand has been made in 22 years, till the bringing of this bill in 1739, by the allignee; the reprefentative of the obligee should be a party. 2 Atk. 235. 1741. Brace v. Harrington.

58. The reprefentative of the obligee, who was dead, ought to be a party in a bill for a ne exeat regno against the obligor. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 25. 1789. May v. Fenwick,

of land and

59. One owner of lands in a township may fue for himself and Occupiers the other land owners to establish a contributory modus. Anft. 768. 36 G. 3. 36 G. 3. Scarr v. Trinity Coll. Cambridge.}

60. It was held not neceffary to make the planters parties to a bill for fpecific performance of articles entered into in England between the proprietors of two provinces in America refpecting their boundaries, the tenure of the planters being prefcribed by the articles. I Vef. 450. 1750. Penn v. Ld. Baltimore.

land own

ers.

61. Bill for an account and for the delivery of a strong box, Pawnor. which was in the cuftody of the defendant, and in which were found jewels, and a note in the following words: "Jewels belonging to the Duke of Devonshire in the hands of Mr. Saville," whofe reprefentative the plaintiff was, and in whofe poffeffion they had been ever fince the year 1695 to the year 1745; not neceflary that, the duke's reprefentative fhould be a party. 1 Vef. 10. 1748. Saville v. Tankred.

62. A caufe permitted to be heard without a neceffary party, Party be he being beyond fea. Bunb. 200. 1725. Rogers v. Linton.

63. A. ftated by books in evidence for defendant to be a merchant abroad, and one witnefs fwearing he knew him late. a merchant abroad, and no evidence of his return, he was fufficiently proved out of the jurifdiétion, and the defendant was precluded from objecting, that he was not a party. 1 Vef. jun. 417. 1792. Weymouth v. Boyer.

yond fea.

tal bill.

64. A bill charges forgery in a leafe, and prays to be relieved Party to a against it, but by way of inducement only mentions there were fupplemen fraudulent circumstances attending this cafe, without making it a diftinct charge from the forgery, or bringing the trustees, who were parties to the leafe, and to whom the fraud is imputed, before the court, and for want of this, the defendant's counfel objected to the plaintiff's going on with the cause. Lord Hardwicke Chancellor, faid, as there had been already a decretal order, and an iffue to try the forgery, and brought on now on the equity re

A a 3

ferved;

Remainder

man.

Tenant in

tail.

Vendor.

ferved; the only method to affift this cafe was, to let the caufe
fteud over, and to allow the plaintiff, on paying the costs of the
day, to file a fupplemental bill, in which he may charge the
fraud, and make the trustees parties. 3 Atk. 110.
v. Jones.

1744. Jones

65. If the objection by the defendants in the original cause, for want of parties to the fupplemental bill, is not made in the first instance, it is too late to do it when the caufe comes on again, where it was put off only for want of formal parties, in order that the decree might be complete. 3 Atk. 217. 1745. Jones

v. Jones.

66. Where there are ever fo many contingent limitations of a truft, it is fufficient to bring the trustees before the court, together with him, in whom the first remainder is vefted. 1 Atk. 590. 1738. Hopkins v. Dare.

67. A remainder man expectant on an estate tail, need not be a party to a bill, one end of which is to impeach a settlement, becaufe fuch remainder-man is not regarded in equity, neither can he be bound. Eq. Ca. Abr. vol. 2. 166. Anon. pl. 8.

68. In a bill for execution of a truft by settling an estate on the feveral branches of a family, it is neceffery to make the first perfon entitled to the inheritance a party, if in being. 2 Vef. 492. 1752. Finch v. Finch.

69. Bill to eftablish a custom, whereby the owners and occupiers of certain lands in the parish of Tort Baldwin, in the county of Oxford, were obliged to keep a bull and boar for the ufe of the parishioners It was objected at the hearing, that a custom

which binds the inheritance of the lands can never be established in a court of equity, without the owners of the inheritance are made partis, as Queen's College, (who were owners, &c.) ought to have been here; upon which objection the bill was difmiffed, Bunb. 18. 1724. Spendler v. Potter.

70. If a remainder-man in tail brings a bill against tenants for life to have the title deeds brought into court, and there are annuitants upon the reverfion, and others who have an interest in the truft term, they must all be parties. 3 Atk. 571.1747% Pincent v. Pyncent.

71. Where a mortgagee has a plain redeemable interest, and makes feveral conveyances upon truft, to entangle the affair, and to render it difficult for a mortgagor or his representatives to redeem, there it is not neceflary that the plaintiff fhould trace out all the perfons who have an interest in fuch trusts, to make them parties, but where the redemption depends upon equitable circumftances, and the plaintiff is not in the common cafe of redemp¬ tion, and where the mortgagee in fee has made an absolute conveyance, with feveral limitations and remainders over, the decree cannot be complete without bringing at least the first tenant in tail before the court. 2 Atk. 237. 1741. Yates v. Hambly.

72. If an ancestor has agreed for the purchase of particular lands, and dies before it be completed, and the heir at law brings

a bill against the devifees, who claim under the ancestor's will made before the purchase, the vendor must be a party, if his title be doubtful, otherwife if it be clear. 1 Atk. 572. 1738. Green v. Smith.

73. Bill by plaintiffs, as leffees of the rector of Winterbourne, Vicar. for a portion of great and fmall tithes in Stoke Gifford, being a neighbouring parifh; the tenants and the lay impropriator, who claimed the great tithe in Stoke Gifford were made parties; but because the vicar of Stoke Gifford, who might be entitled to the small tithe, was not made a party, the bill was ordered to be dismiffed; but, upon application, stood over with liberty to amend. Bunb. 115. 1722. Baily v. Worral.

Bunb. 141.

74. Bill for tithes by the bishop and fequeftrator during the incapacity of the incumbent, difiniffed, the incumbent not being made a party. 1723. Bishop of London v. Nicholls. 75. Bill by a vicar, against a fequeftrator for an account of the profits received during the vacation: it was objected, that the bishop ought to have been made a party, fince the fequeftrator is accountable to him for what he receives. By the ftat. 28 Hen. 8. the court thought the bishop fhould have been a party; by confent, the caufe was referred to the bishop of the diocefe. Note, It was faid that a fequeftrator could not alone bring a bill for the tithes. Bunb. 192. 1724. Jones v. Barrett.

76. The reprefentatives of the undertakers for briefs, who are Undertakdead, need not be brought before the court, for they are each an- ersfor briefs. fwerable the one for the other, and are to be confidered as one body. 2 Atk. 162. 1741. Ex parte Angel.

1.

(C) Want of proper Partics. The Effect thereof.

A Bill is not difmiffed for want of proper parties, but ftands over on paying the costs of the day, that the plaintiff may have an opportunity of making proper parties. 4 Bro. Par. Ca. 1733. Green v. Poole. 2 Atk. 15. 1737. Anon. 3 Atk. 1744. Jones v. Jones.

122.

2. If at the hearing the plaintiff waives the relief he prays against a particular perfon, the objection for want of his being a party will have no weight. 2 Atk. 296. May 1742. Parvlet v. Bishop of Lincoln.

3. Exceptions may be taken for want of parties at the hearing of the caufe, or the bill may be demurred to. 2 Atk. 510. 1742. Darwent v. Walton.

4. But it must be done at the opening of the proceedings, and before the merits are difelofed. 3 Atk. 111. 1744. Jones v. Jones. 5. If the objection by the defendants in the original caufe, for want of parties to the fupplemental, is not made in the firft inftance, it is too late when the caufe comes on again, where it was put off for want of formal parties, in order that the decree might be complete. 3 Atk. 217. 1745. Jones v. Jones. A a 4

6. Where

16Vin. 257.

6. Where a cause stands over for want of making fome de fendants parties, you cannot proceed against any other, unless the plaintiff will fubmit to difmifs his bill as to thofe defendants whe are improperly brought before the court. 3 Atk. 400. 1746. Wicks v. Marfball.

16in. 257. (D) Who fhall be faid to be Party. When and by what praying Process.

WHOEVER comes in before a Master under a decree, is quafi a party to that fuit, and if he brings a new bill, a plea that the former fuit is ftill depending will be allowed. 3 Atk. 557. 1747. Neve v. Wefon.

THE

Paupers.

(B) In what Cafes and how.

HE affidavit to ground his being admitted to fue in formâ pauperis must be made by himself. 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 272. 1787. Wilkinson v. Belfber.

(C) Favoured, indulged, punished, or restrained.

1. PLAINTIFFS fuing in forma pauperis fhall not amend by leav ing out defendants without paying their cofts. 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 272. 1787. Wilkinson v. Belber.

2. A pauper fhall not difmifs his bill without cofts. 3 Bra Ch. Rep. 87. 1790. Pearfon v. Belfber.

3. A pauper is liable to be committed for filing an improper bill. 4 Vef. jun. 630. 1799. Pearfon v. Belfer.

4. On a motion to ftay the plaintiff's proceedings as a pauper, till he paid cofts in a former action, wherein he was nonfuited; it appeared that the nonfuit was upon a flip of the attorney's, and not upon the merits of the cause, which the defendant might have gone into notwithstanding, if he would. The court-This was not vexatious, and therefore refused to stay proceedings. Winter v. Slotu, 2 Stra. 878.

5. Per curiam-It is fettled in C. B., and we rule it fo here, that a pauper fhall not pay costs for not going to trial as other plaintiffs do. But if the cofts are taxed, we will prevent his being vexatious, by obliging him to pay them before he fhall try the caufe. Noaks v. Watts, 1 Stra. 420.