case dunn versus allen January in court master of the roll Eq can ab pl S c a  purchaser or assignee who come not in privity be not entitle to bring a to  know fac to revive a decree a decree for confirm a agreement between the lord  and his tenant for settle heriots and stint the common revive by a bill bring  by a purchaser who do not come in privity and confirm though the lord and his  tenant be only tenant for life but qure the plaintiff purchase the manor of  Lenthall in the county of Hereford of sir Samson eure who upon article of  agreement make betwixt he and his tenant for the settle of heriots and stint  the common obtain a decree for confirmation thereof the plaintiff first bring  a to know fac to revive this decree which be discharge by the late Lord keeper  north in regard that the plaintiff who claim as a purchaser or assignee and  come not in privity be not entitle to bring a to know fac to revive the decree  so a assignee can in no case bring a bill of review such dict arg Barbon v  Searle ante so where assignee of a bankrupt die or be discharge and other be  put in their room they can revive but must bring a supplemental bill there be  no privity or at least but a artificial one between a bankrupt and his  assignee anon atk but on fill a supplemental bill they shall have the benefit  of the proceed in the suit commence by the old assignee anon ibidem so  plaintiff permit on motion to revive though not entitle because oppose by  answer and not plead or demurrer to Harris v pollard p wms but good title to  revive ought nevertheless to be show ibidem a devisee may bring a original  bill in nature of a bill of revivor and shall have the same advantage of a  decree as a heir or executor and the defendant be not at liberty to make a new  defence Clare v Wordell post vol et v ice line for he can be in a better  condition than the heir Minshull v Lord Mohun ibidem n b the practice be to  revive in all case indiscriminate by bill Mit Tr d Ed but the same be  discharge without cost for that the defendant do not demurrer to the to know  fac as the Lord keeper say he may have do and now the plaintiff bring his bill  to revive the decree and pray no other relief to which the same objection be  make as have be before to the to know fac the plaintiff be no more entitle to  bring a bill of revivor than a to know fac there be no other difference  betwixt they save only that a to know fac lie when a decree be sign and enrol  and a bill of revivor upon a abatement before such time as the decree be sign  and enrol but a assignee or a purchaser who come not in privity can in no case  revive but ought to bring a original bill to have a parallel decree make in  which it may be use as a good argument or inducement to the court that there  be such former decree to make a like decree if no sufficient reason be Vernon  chancery case show to the contrary but the former decree can no way be revive  nor carry into execution save only by the make a parallel decree and the  plaintiff have now no such bill and this be the objection as to the form and  as to the matter it appear of the plaintiff own show that this agreement be  make only betwixt person that be bare tenant for life for on the one hand sir  Samson eure the lord of the manor be but tenant for life and on the other hand  the tenant be but likewise tenant for life by settlement make precedent to  these article on which the decree be find so their agreement can in no sort  bind on the one hand or the other the person who upon the respective death of  the tenant for life become tenant in tail but the master of the roll sir I  Trevor be of opinion that these article tend to settle the custom of the manor  which be immemorial and before the statute de gift and for stint the common  and prevent suit ought to bind the issue in tail though make only by the  tenant for life et vide Rothwell v Widrington post where feme covert after the  death of her husband under the circumstance bind by a enclosure to which he  claim in her right have agree in his lifetime and he will not presume that the  tenant in possession will do any thing in prejudice of the tenant right and  Vernon chancery case er p decree that the former decree shall be confirm and  revive and execute Qure and for that the say article be natural bind to the  premise as well as to the person and that therefore no act be reciprocal do  between the lord or tenant since the make of the say article and decree they  remain in full force and virtue and that Mr Dunns title to the say manor and  premise be for good and valuable consideration he be well entitle to have a  execution and performance of the say article and decree and the say decree be  and do hereby stand revive and confirm and the plaintiff have bring several  action at law against the defendant the same be stay by injunction Reg lib a  fol