Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/502

 488 FEDERAL REPORTER. �8. iNJTJHCTIpN— WHERB THE DBFBNDAKT CoTtPOIiATIOK BeCOJIKS Ex- �TiNCT— How DissoLVED. — WheTi a dcfendant corporation beeomcs dissolved, its assignee may, upon motion or petition, obtain a rule to have an injunction agaiast it dissolved, unless the plaintilî aliiiU, ■within a specifled time, revive the suit against the assignee ; but he cannot by petition become a defendant, andproceed to hcaring on the record, without the plaintifE's consent. He has no such interest as authorizes him to revive and continue the suit, where a dissolution of the injunction ia the only object of the proposed revivor by him. �4. Equitt Practicb— New Pabtibs — Application to Bboomb — Rttlb AUD Exceptions. — The general rule, that no one will be adraitted as a party against the consent of the plaintiff, has certain exceptions, which are stated, and their application to the case in judgment denied. �Wright, Folkes e Wright, for petitioner. �Heiskell e Heiskell, for plaintiff. �Hammokd, D. J. This is a bill for the rescissîon of a con- tract or for an account, as the right may appear, and the defendant Company is under an injunction restraining it from selling, under a deed of trust, the lands of the plaintiff to secure a debt due the company. The parties being at issue and the cause ready for trial, one William S. Kelfe pre- sents his petition, stating that the Insurance company, hav- ing become insolvent, has been, by a decree of the proper court in Missouri, dissolved ; and that he, by operation of law and the said decree, has become invested with the right to ail its assets, including the debt due by the plaintiff, and has been charged with the duty of coUecting them. He asks to be made a party defendant, and to proceod to trial without delay, so that the injunction may be dissolved and he allowed to enforce the trust. The plaintiff, on the other hand, presents a supplemental bill setting up the same facts, and asks leave to file it against Relfe> and thereby to revive the suit, and resists the application of the petitioner to become a defendant on his own motion. �The loose practice condemned by Chancellor Cooper in the case of Stretch v. Siretch, 2 Tenn. Ch. 140, and supposed by him not to be authorized by the Tennessee Code or the supreme court, has created a very general confusion on the subject of bringing in new parties to a chaneery suit in the ����