664 FEDEEAL EEPOP.TEB. �intended by the court to curtail or prejudice any rights which Mr. Stern as a bond holder bas in the premises. It is with the view of giving to him and to ail other parties as complete and just adjudication of any rights and equities which they have, and at the same time maintain an orderly course of procedure, that we take the action now contemplated. �For the present the demurrer and pleas to complainant's amended bill will stand undisposed of. Proceedings in this case will be stayed until further order, with the right, however, reserved to complainant, if he shall so elect, to bave the cases Consolidated. �The litigation between these parties will be transferred to the trustees' suit, and complainant, Stern, will have the right, if he bas not already done so, to take such suitable and apt proceedings in that suit as he may be advised, for the purpose of securing an adjudication of any rights to which he may be entitled. ���Kbllet V. Mississippi Cesteal E. Go, �(Circuit Court, W. D. Tennessee. March, 1880.) �CoKPORATioN — Extinction — Plea in Abatement. Where certain per- sonswere servod with process as the representatives of an alleged corpo- ration, the plaintift' cannot preclude them from pleading in their own names^he extinction of such corporation. �Humes dh Poston, for plaintiff. �James Fentress and Wright, Folkea d Wright, for defend- ants. �Hammond, J. The only question to be now determined is wbether the persons named in the marshal's return shall be allowed to plead. The question here raised usually arises in some collateral way, and when it bas been directly presented, as in this case, the courts are always beset with technical dif- ficulties. On the one hand it is urged that a dead party cannot speak ; that a non-existing thing cannot, without ad- mitting the very question in dispute, plead in the manner it might if it did exist; while on the other hand it is said with ��� �
