case HOLLINGSHEADS case Lord chancellor Macclesfield Eq can ab note to pl pl  on a bill in equity be abate by death the executor or administrator bar by  statute of limitation if they do not revive within six year but not after a  decree to account a be partner with b in the trade of a mercer a die in  testate and c his administrator bring a bill in equity against b for a account  of the partnership effect whereupon the case be hear and a account be decree  the master make a report by which it appear that there be nothing due from the  defendant to the plaintiff c take exception to the master report and then die  and the now plaintiff have take out administration de good non of a bring his  bill of revivor to revive these proceed the defendant plead the statute of  limitation and the above six year have pass after the death of the first  administrator and the plaintiff take out letter of administration before the  fill of the bill of revivor for the plaintiff it be urge saint that the  statute of limitation be a improper plea in this case that pray to revive be  pray to stand in the place of the first plaintiff peer William which the  plaintiff when he have revive will do and consequent will not be bar by the  statute of limitation since it be not pretend but the first suit be bring in  time dly that a decree of the court of chancery be in nature of a judgement  and it can not be think a judgement be within the statute of limitation for  even a specialty be not and a decree though only to account be still a decree  dly that there be no reason this case shall be take as within the statute of  limitation because the defendant in the case of a account where each side be  actor if he think fit may revive and so the delay of the plaintiff be not to  be object by the defendant in who power it be to have prevent any ill  consequence therefrom attorneygeneral Raymond contra it be true when the  plaintiff have revive he stand in the place of the plaintiff in the original  bill but this plea be plead in bar of revive and until then the plaintiff do  not stand in his place and we may well object that by the statute of  limitation he ought to have come soon to which the court seem to incline as to  the second objection he observe that this decree be only to account be but  interlocutory and it do not appear by such decree that one farthing be due  from the defendant to the plaintiff so that it establish no debt nor be it  evidence of the plaintiff have any just cause of suit with regard to the three  objection he admit either side may revive in this case but it will be hard to  put the defendant to revive a Chargeable suit against himself when he may be  satisfy in his conscience that nothing be real due and here be room for the  court to intend so in this case when the master after examine into the matter  have report nothing due and though by exception be put in to the report such  peer William report be suspend yet the plaintiff shall not have sleep six year  after the administration take out Lord chancellor the statute of limitation  speak nothing of bill in equity yet these be construe to be within it the case  of not revive a decree which be only to account be within all the mischief  design to be prevent videlicet to sue a man after his voucher may have be lose  or his witness dead for if the party may delay six year before he revive his  bill he may by the same reason forbear twentysix thirtysix or fortysix year  there can be no doubt but that if this be only a bill and answer and the suit  aborted the executor must bring his bill of revivor within six year else the  suit will be bar now the reason hold still as strong in case of a decree to  account which be in nature of a judgement quod to sum up where if the  plaintiff have die his executor or administrator can not former carry it on as  now by the late statute W c h he may and though it may seem a material  objection that when there be a decree to account the defendant as well as  plaintiff may revive it will however be very hard for equity to force a man to  revive a suit against himself at the same time that he swear that he owe  nothing therefore let the plaintiff amend his bill and the defendant his  answer to bring the matter more full before the court peer William er p after  which the defendant die and one Beecher administer to he the plaintiff bring  another bill of revivor whereupon the defendant Beecher plead the statute of  limitation and come to be argue before Lord chancellor king in mic his  lordship disallow the plea say that a peer William bill of revivor after a  decree to account be in nature of a cognizant fa and not within or barrable by  the statute of limitation though the demand seem to be a very stale one and  not to be countenance see smith v clay Amb hercy v Dinwoodi Ves jun bro c c  Pearson v belchier Ves Hovenden v Annesley Sch l Egremont v Hamilton ba b