Case ID: va_13/html/0642-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JUDGES TUCKER and FEEMING JUDGE ROANE", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Buster v. Wallace.
    Wednesday, November 16, 1808.
    Appeals — Abatement—Revival.—An appeal having' abated at March‘term by the death of the appellant: a scire facias to revive it may be awarded at the ensuing October term.
    The appeal in this case had abated at the March term last, by the death of the appellant, and now Hening moved for a scire facias to revive it in the name of his executor. He cited the case of Gibbs v. Perkin-son, as in point.
    Hay, on the other side, opposed the motion ; on the ground that, if the appeal might be revived after a term had intervened, there would be no limitation. Perhaps the appellee might, at that moment, be pursuing his judgment against the representatives of the appellant, in the Court below. In the case of Gibbs v. Perkinson, the appeal abated at one term, and the scire facias to revive was awarded *at the next. There was no intervention of a term as in this case.
    Hening, in reply, observed that, although a term had not intervened in the case of Gibbs v. Perkinson, yet almost as great a period of time had elapsed as in the present case. That appeal abated at the October term, 1807, and the scire facias to revive was awarded at the March term, 1808. The interval of fifteen days between the March and April terms, would not afford counsel an opportunity of ascertaining the names of the representatives of a deceased party ; and, it was understood to have been settled in the case of Turpin, administrator of James, v. Thomas, that the practice of reviving appeals in the names of the representatives generally, would no longer be permitted by the Court.
    
      
      Appeals. — See monographic note on “Appeal and Error” appended to Hillv. Salem, etc., Turnpike Co., 1 Rob. 263.
    
    
      
      Chancery Causes — Revival.—In Gainer v. Gainer, 30 W. Va. 394, 4 S. E. Rep. 428, it is said: “As the representative of the plaintiff might delay indefinitely the revival of a chancery cause in any mode, under the practice which grew up, and as a necessary sequence of the decisions rendered by the court of appeals of Virginia in 1808 of Gibbs v. Perkinson, 2 Hen. & M. all, and Buster v. Wallace, 3 Ren. & M. 217, the defendant might hasten the revival of a chancery cause by the representative of a deceased plaintiff by suggesting his death on the record, and by having an ¿>rder made abating or discontinuing cause for that reason.”
    
    
      
       2 Hen. & Munf. p. 211.
    
    
      
       2 Hen. & Munf. p. 139.
    
   JUDGES TUCKER and FEEMING

were of opinion, that, in consideration of the short interval between the March and April terms, the motion might be granted ; but were not disposed to extend the indulgence any further.

JUDGE ROANE

was opposed to the motion.

This scire facias to revive the appeal was awarded.