Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/241

 DOUGLAS V. BUTLEB. 299 �cuting the suit; but where the acts of the husband are not complained of, he would seem to be the most snitable person to unite with her in the suit. This is a matter of practice within the discretion of the court," etc. Bai the objection is not reckoned of much practical importance, as ail the au- thorities agree that, where such a defect in the parties is brought to the attention of the court, the practice is not to dismiss the bill, but to give permission to the wife to amend by adding a next friend, and making the husband a defend- ant. Johnson v. Vail, 1 McC. 426. �As the leamed counsel for the defendant came into the case af ter the final hearing, and was permitted, by the courtesy of the counsel of the complainant, to file a brief in reply to bis brief, it was not, probably, within his knowledge that such permission was craved by the complainant at the hearing, and granted by the court; and that, subsequently, John Cruikshank, on his own application, was allowed to enter his name in the suit as the next friend of Mary M. Douglas — the husband, Eobert J. Douglas, being made a defendant. �The bill of complaint is filed by Mary M. Douglas, by her next friend, against Dempsey D. Butler, claiming that before the first day of November, 1872, she was the owner in fee- simple of two separate tracts of real estate in the said city of Camden,with a number of tenement-houses standing thereon, of the value of $7,000 or |8,000; that, residing out of the state, she had the property placed in the hands of an agent, to lease the bouses and collect the rents; that about the sev- enth of Pebruary, 1873, she received a letter from her agent stating that the tenants refused to pay to him any more rent, the defendant Butler having served notice Upon them that he claimed the rents as the purchaser of the property on a public sale made by the city for non-payment of the taxes ; that the complainant's husbarui, on her behalf, immediately went to the city of Camden, and had an interview with the defend- ant Butler, and requested from him a statement of the amount of money, including ail costs and expenses, paid by him on said tax sales, with the expressed desire and purpose of pay- ing the f uU amount of the claims of the defendant ; and that ��� �