general replication will apply to the whole record, and put at issue the allegations in both answers.25 If the new matter in the supplemental bill is not admitted, it must be proved, or the bill will be dismissed with costs.26 For this purpose evidence may be taken and a hearing had as upon an original bill.27 If there has been no previous hearing and decree, both bills may be brought to a hearing together, and a single decree will suffice for both.28 If the supplemental bill is heard alone, the evidence taken in the original suit may be read in support of or in opposition to it.29 The effect of a supplemental bill when sustained is to put the suit in the same condition as if the supplemental matter had been alleged, and the new party, if any, brought in at its institution.30 A bill improperly styled a supplemental bill was dismissed upon a demurrer, which specified that objection, although it might have been sustained as a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill.31 § 190. Bills in the nature of supplemental bills in general. A bill in the nature of a supplemental bill is a bill filed to obtain the benefit of a suit, either after an abatement which cannot be cured by a bill of revivor or a bill in the nature of a bill of revivor, or after the suit has become defective in cases which do not admit of a supplemental bill to supply that defect. Cases frequently occur in practice where the interest of an original party to a suit is completely determined, and another person becomes interested in the subject-matter by a title not derived from the other, but in such a manner as to make it proper that the benefit of the former proceedings should be had by or against the latter, without incurring the expense of commencing an entirely new proceeding. In such a case, the benefit of the former proceedings may be obtained by means of a bill called an original bill in the nature of a 25 Catton v. Earl of Carlisle, 5 Madd. 427. 26 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1683; Pedrick v. White, 1 Met. (Mass.) 76. 27 Lloyd v. Johnes, 9 Ves. 27; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1683. 28 Mitford's Pl., ch. 1, § 3; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1684, 1685. 29 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.)1684; Turrell v. Spaeth, 9 Off. Gaz. 1663. 30 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1666, 1667. 31 Campbell v. City of New York, 35 Fed. R. 14. But see Ross v. City of Ft. Wayne, 58 Fed. R. 404, 406. $ 190. Mitford's Pl., ch. 1, § 3; Campbell v. New York, 35 Fed. R. 14; Tappan v. Smith, 5 Biss. 73. But see Secor v. Singleton, 41 Fed. R. 725, 726. supplemental bill, or a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill. Such a bill must also be filed to bring into a suit the assignee of a sole plaintiff who had acquired his interest during its pendency. The reason given for this is the doctrine of maintenance, in consequence of which "it is not enough for the new plaintiff to state that his assignor instituted a suit and assigned to him the benefit of it; he must show that his assignor had the property in respect of which the suit was instituted, and that that property has been assigned and carries with it the right to sue."4 Such a bill may be brought by the assignee of the complainant to a bill to enjoin the infringement of a patent and for an account of profits and damages, although the assignment was made, and the bill in the nature of a supplemental bill was filed, after the expiration of the patent, pending the suit, and merely for the purpose of collecting damages. The assignee of a decree for an injunction and an account of damages caused by the infringement of a trademark may have the benefit of the suit by filing an original bill in the nature of a supplemental bill. Neither such a bill nor a supplemental bill will be sustained when filed by a purchaser of a railroad at a foreclosure sale to obtain the benefit of a decree enjoining the collection of taxes obtained by stockholders in a suit brought subsequent to the mortgage.7 So where a defendant dies before appearance or a decree against him pro confesso, his successor can only be brought in by a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill, which, however, is considered merely supplemental as to the other defendants. Such a bill may be filed by a purchaser of the complainant's interest even after a decree;9 but where the purchase was made 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1685; Mitford's Pl., ch. 1, § 3. 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1667; Campbell v. New York, 35 Fed. R. 14; Ross v. City of Ft. Wayne, 58 Fed. R. 404; s. c. on appeal, 65 Fed. R. 466; Tappan v. Smith, 5 Biss. 73. But see Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumn. 173; Sedgwick v. Cleveland, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 290. 4 White on Supplement and Revivor, 126, 174; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1667. 5 Ross v. City of Ft. Wayne, 58 Fed. R. 404; s. C. on appeal, 63 Fed. R. 466. 6 Walter Baker & Co. v. Baker, 89 Fed. R. 673. But see New York B. & P. Co. v. N. J. C. S. & R. Co., 47 Fed. R. 504. 7 Keokuk & S. W. R. Co. v. Scotland County, 152 U. S. 317. 8 U. S. v. Fields, 4 Blatchf. 326; Crowfoot v. Mander, 9 Sim. 396; Asbee v. Shipley, M. & G. 296; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1673. 9 Walter Baker & Co. v. Baker, 89 after a direction for a decree, the bill should not be filed until after the decree is entered.10 § 191. Frame of a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill. A bill in the nature of a supplemental bill "must state the original bill, the proceedings upon it, the event which has determined the interest of the party by or against whom the former bill was exhibited, and the manner in which the property has vested in the person become entitled. It must then show the ground upon which the court ought to grant the benefit of the former suit to or against the person so become entitled, and pray the decree of the court adapted to the case of the plaintiff in the new bill." It will not be impertinent for it to restate allegations of the bill or answer in the original suit, nor to charge new matter which occurred before the original bill was filed, for the purpose of meeting a defense in the original answer. But a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill need contain no more of the allegations in the original bill than suffices to show a cause of action against the defendants to it. Otherwise, its form should be, as far as possible, in compliance with that of an original bill. If, however, its object be merely to obtain the benefit of the proceedings in the original suit, the want of the difference of citizenship necessary to support an independent original bill will not deprive the court of jurisdiction of it, provided the first suit were properly brought." § 192. Proceedings upon bills in the nature of supplemental bills. A bill in the nature of a supplemental bill is filed in the same manner as a supplemental bill, and the same rule governs the time of the filing of pleadings to it.1 Otherwise, proceedings upon bills in the nature of supplemental bills resemble those upon independent original bills. According to Lord Redesdale, "a new defense may be made; the pleadings Fed. R. 673; Hazleton T. R. Co. v. § 191. Mitford's Pl., ch. 1, § 3. 2 Woods v. Woods, 10 Sim. 197; Atty. Gen. v. Foster, 2 Hare, 81; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1667, Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 16751677; Vigers v. Lord Audley, 9 Sim.72. 4 Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 Wall. 609. § 192. 1 Rule 57. See § 189. 2 Mexican Ore Co. v. M. G. M. Co., 47 Fed. R. 351, 356. and depositions cannot be used in the same manner as if filed or taken in the same cause; and the decree, if any has been obtained, is no otherwise of advantage than as it may be an inducement to the court to make a similar decree." As has been remarked by Lord Eldon, this passage contains an obscurity of language which is due to an obscurity in the subject. But the probable meaning and the view of the matter best supported by authority are, that upon the filing of what is called a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill, no further benefit of the proceedings in the original suit can be obtained than would be if it were styled merely an original bill; and the evidence and admissions and the benefit of the decree in the former suit will only be allowed when the parties to the second are in privity with those to the first suit." 3 Mitford's Pl., ch. 1, § 3. 4 Lloyd v. Johnes, 9 Ves. 37, 56. 5 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1685, 1688; Great Western Tel. Co. v. Purdy, 162 U. S. 329. CHAPTER XV. INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. § 193. Definition and classification of interlocutory applications. An interlocutory application is a request, not incorporated in a bill, made to the court for its interference in a matter arising in a cause either before or after a decree. An interlocutory application is made by motion on petition. § 194. Definition and classification of motions.-A motion has been defined as "an application either by a party or his counsel, not founded upon any written statement addressed to the court." 1 But the rules of the Supreme Court of the United States provide that "all motions hereafter made to the court shall be reduced to writing, and shall contain a brief statement of the facts and objects of the motion."2 And most motions are supported by affidavits. Motions are either of course or special. Special motions are either ex parte or upon notice. § 195. Motions of course.- Motions of course are those which, by some rule or practice of the court, are invariably granted without notice, and to which no opposition is allowed.' In Federal equity practice, the term is usually confined to such motions as are granted as of course by the clerk without the intervention of a judge of the court. The equity rules provide that "all motions and applications in the clerk's office for the issuing of mesne process and final process to enforce and execute decrees; for filing bills, answers, pleas, demurrers, and other pleadings; for making amendments to bills and answers; for taking bills pro confesso; for filing exceptions; and for other proceedings in the clerk's office which do not by the rules hereinafter prescribed require any allowance or order of the § 194. 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1787. See the language of Folger, J., in Shaft v. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 544, 547. 2 Supreme Court Rule 6. § 195. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1599; U. S. v. Parrott, 1 McAll 447, 454. 2 Robinson v. Satterlee, 3 Saw. 184, 141. |