Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/349

 HA80N ». HAETFOBD, PBOVIDBNCB 4 FISHKILL B. 00. 337 �Island state court the bill of revivor was filed, and that they are now anxious to speed the cause. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any motion on the part of the defendants to speed the cause, we do not see how the charge of laches can be seriously pressed ; at least, so far as the present motion is concerned. �The complainants, in the event of their replications being held to be bad, ask leave to withdraw them, and to amend their bill of revivor by inserting, among other things, the fact that they were on the twenty-fifth day of July, 1881, by the court of probate for the district of Suffolk, in the state of Massachusetts, duly appointed administrators of the estate of Earl P. Mason. The defendants object, upon the ground that this is new matter, accruing since the filing of the bill, which cannot be set up by amendment, but only by Bupplemental bill. It is true that events ■which have happened since the filing of a bill cannot be introduced by way of amendment, and that as a general rule they may be set out by supplemental bill. Equity Eule 57, U. S. Court. �In Daniell, Ch. PL & Pr. (4th Ed.) 1515, note 1, we find "an orig- inal bill cannot be amended by incorporating anything therein which arose subsequently to the commencement of the suit. This should be stated in a supplemental bill." And again, on page 828, note 1, (already cited,) it is laid down that matters in avoidance of a plea, which have arisen since the suit began, are properly set out by a supplemental bill. Mitford & Tyler, PI. & Pr. in Eq. 169 ; Story Eq. PI. § 880. But in this case it is difficult to see how a supplemental bill can be brought. The bill of revivor bas not become defective from any event happening after it was filed. But originally, when it was brought, it was wholly defective; for the fact that the plain- tiffs were appointed administrators by the proper court in Massachu- setts was necessary to its maintenance. Mellus v. Thompson, 1 Clif. 125. And yet this event happened, as the record discloses, nearly a year after it was brought. If the bill is wholly defective, and there is no ground for proceeding upon it, it cannot be sustained by filing a supplemental bill, founded upon matters which have subsequently taken place. Candler v. Pettit, 1 Paige, Ch. 168. �In Pinch v. Anthony, 10 Allen, 471, 477, the court observe : �" We have found no authority that goes so far as to authorize a party, who has no cause of action at the time of fliing his original bill, to file a supple- mental bill in order to maiutain his suit upon a cause of action that accrued T.10,no.3— 22 ��� �