490 . TEBEKAIi REPORTEE. �me, ail the interest he bas in pi-essing a trîal after the suit bas become so defective that it can never proceed against him •without a revivor.- There are, undoubtedly, cases — generally, tbose where a decree bas been rendered and there bas subse- quently been a change of parties — in which the defendant htm- self or his representative may revive a suit by supplemental bill in cases of strict revivor, or by original bill in the nature of a supplemental bill in otber cases; but be cannot do tbis by petition or motion. Thompson v. Hill, supra; 2 Danl. Cb. Pr. (5th Ed.) 15S9, and notes. �But where the only interest of the representative is to dis- solve an injunction, whicb is tbis case, he does not proceed by a bill to revive. 2 Danl. Ch. Pr. 1539, at note 8. It is said be must proceed in the ordinary way to procure a dissolution of the injunction, and I find that to be by motion for a rule that the injunction stand dissolved, unless the plaintiff shall within a short time, usually 12 days, file bis supplemental bill or bill of revivor. Kerr, Inj. 633, and cases; 2 Danl. Cb. Pr. (5th Ed.) 1539, note 7 and cases; Id. 1544, note 1 and cases; Id. 1679, note 5 and cases; Thompson v. Hill, and cases cited. Tbis furnishes the defendant bere a sufficient remedy to get rid of the injunction, and I bave no doubt his petition could be entertained for that purpose ; for whatever one may do by motion he may do by petition, and it is proper to file one wberever intricate facts are to be stated as a basis of the motion. 2 Danl. Cb. Pr. 1592, 1603. But that is not the purpose for whicb tbis petition is offered, and if it were it would be dismissed, in the face of an application by the plain- tiff to file his supplemental bill. Even where the defendant may file a supplemental bill preference will be given to the application of the plaintiff to file his supplemental bill. Carow V. Moa)att, 1 Edw. Ch. 9. �The case most relied on by the learned counsel for the peti- tioner is White v. Hall, 1 Euss. & Myl. 332. But see Bozon T. Bolland, Id. 69. He also relies on Young v. Everest, Id. 426. In the first case the father, who was named as one of the exeeutors in the will, was out of the jurisdiction when the bill was filed, and, it being a bill against the exeeutors, be waa ����
