Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/496

 48e FEDERAL REPORTES. �a patent in the use of the school furniture of the schools of the city. The suit proceeded until the legislature of the state provided a successor of the board of education, called the de- partment of public instruction, and then a successor to that, called, again, the board of education. Answers and replica- tion were filed and teatimony was taken. After the new board of education vas ereated it was summoned to appear and answer as a party defendant, but did not. The bill was not taken pro confessa against it, and after several terms the cause was fully heard, on the issues made by the plead- ings which were in, without objection by either party, and without bringing the fact that the bill against the new board of education had not been answered nor taken pro confesso to the attention of the court. The cause was decided, and an interlocutory decree ordered, since which the new board has filed an answer, and the plaintiflf has moved to have it taken from the file, and the cause has been heard on this motion. �The rules in equity are framed for bringing a cause to a hearing, and do not apply after a cause has been heard un- lesS some proceedings are taken to bring it within their opera- tion again, and to start it anew towards a hearing. When the cause is heard, without objection by either party, all steps not taken by either, which the other had a right to insist upon for the orderly bringing the cause to a hearing, must be considered as waived. Any other course would lead to re- opening causes, after hearing, for technioal and unimportant defects, and greatly embarrass the prompt administration of justice by the courts, which is for the good of the people. In this case, theoretically, probably, these new corporations were new parties, whom it was necessary to bring in, but, practically, they were successors in the same right and duty. Whatever would be a defence for one would be for the other, and when pleaded by one, and tried on the issues made, the trial would be the same as if the same defence was pleaded anew. Each of these corporations is understood to be rep- resentative in its character, and, if the principal is repre- sented in every defence by one, it is not necessary to the ��� �