334 fSSSIUL ££POIi:TEB. ���Mason, Adm'r, etc., v. Hartfoed, Providenob & Fishkill E. Co. �and others. �(Cireuit Oourt, 2>. JUassaehueette. Febroary 4, 1882.) �1. Equitt Pleaddto — Speciai Repijcations. �A special replication which sets up in reply to a plea or a demnirer nfiw nat- ter, and matter accniing aines the aling of the bill, wiil be ordered gtrickeo out, on motion. �3. Equitt Practioe — Amkndmeiits. �New matter accruing since the bill was filed cannot be incorporated into tha bill of revivor by amendment. �i. Casb Statbd. �To a bill of revivor, flled by the alleged administrators and trustees of the original comnlainant, a plea was put in setting up that it did nut appear by the bill that the plaintills had ever been appoiuted administrators by a court of com- petent jurisdiction. A demiirrer was tlled to the bill by another defendant, on the same and othcr grounds. Seld, that a replication setting out that since the flling of the plea and demurrer the plaintLSs had been appointed adminis- trators by a court of competent jurisdiction, could not be sustained ; and that such matter could not be set up by amendment. �In Equity. Decision upon defendants' motions to strike replica- tions from the files, and to dismiss bill of revivor, and upon com- plainants' motion to withdraw replications, and amend bill of re- vivor. �T. E. Graves, John F. Tohey, and A. & A. D. Payne, for plaintiffs. �S: E. Baldwin, Ropes, Gray dt Loring, Brooks, Bail e Storey, G. W. Baldwin, ana. E, P. Nettleton, for defendants. �CoLT, D. J. In this cause a bill of revivor was filed Angust 14, 1880, by the alleged administrators and trustees of Earl P. Mason, the original complainant. To this bill one of the defendants, William T. Hart, put in a plea, setting up that it did not appear by said bill of revivor that the plaintiffs named therein had ever been appointed administrators of said estate by any court of competent jurisdiction in the state of Massachusetts, and that therefore the plaintiffs had no right to file said bill, that the court had no jurisdiction thereof, and praying that the bill might be dismissed. The New York & New England Eailroad Company, another defendant, demurred to the bill upon this as well as other grounds. To this plea and demurrer the complainants in the bill of revivor filed separate replications, setting out, among other things, that since the filing of the plea and demur- rer they had been appointed administrators of the estate of the said Earl P. Mason in the state of Massachusetts. ��� �
