atkins case anon November the that a order for dissolve a injunction nisi will  be make absolute notwithstanding the plaintiff be a bankrupt unless he show  cause Mr Wilbraham where the defendant have a order for dissolve the  injunction nisi move it may be make absolute unless cause show before the rise  of the court Mr jewel of the other side say the cause be abate by the  plaintiff have become a bankrupt since the grant of the injunction and that  the assignee under the commission have not as yet revive Lord chancellor  bankruptcy be no abatement and therefore if he have any cause to show he must  go on or he will dissolve atkins the injunction upon which he show exception  for cause which be allow upon the common term of procure the master report in  four day atkins er p Bramhall v cross Exchq hill term this be a motion to  dismiss the bill with cost for want of prosecution unless cause the cause show  be the bankruptcy of the plaintiff after the bill file and before the bill  become dismissible the case of tait v Carwick that of June be cite wherein the  bill have be dismiss but without cost for want of prosecution notwithstanding  the bankruptcy the Lord chief baron think that the circumstance of this case  be such as to entitle the plaintiff to no favour and the bill be dismiss with  cost in sellas v Dawson Chan December the that a motion be make to discharge a  order for dismiss the bill which be file in the answer be put in in February  the sole plaintiff become a bankrupt in march in December the defendant  without notice to the assignee of the bankrupt obtain a order to dismiss the  bill for want of prosecution with cost the plaintiff give notice of a motion  to discharge the order of dismission for irregularity the defendant solicitor  undertake in write not to proceed on the order of dismission and offer to pay  the cost but he do not pay they now notice be give by the plaintiff to  discharge the first order it be at present a bar to the assignee continue the  suit by supplemental bill the case of tait v Carwick and Bramhall v cross be  cite Lord Thurlow at first doubt whether he can discharge the order but the  application to have the order of dismissal discharge be renew the that of  January when his lordship say he can not make a order dismiss the former order  because that will acknowledge that there can be a order make after bankruptcy  and when the suit as he conceive be abate he think it be abate by analogy to  abatement at law which always take place on a bankruptcy before judgement  either final or interlocutory and so it be in the case of monk v morris Mod  and waugh v Austen term Rep he say that notwithstanding the exchequer practice  this be a order improper to have be make and improper to be notice now that it  be a mere nullity and that the bankruptcy before judgement or decree be equal  a abatement in equity as well as at law that the case in atkins where Lord  Hardwicke be report to say it be no abatement be ill report for the order  which have be examine do not warrant the report that the assignee shall now  file their supplemental bill which will take up the proceed from the very date  of the bankruptcy and so cast out this intermediate order total his lordship  admit that this be not a strict bill of revivor nor even of supplement but a  original bill in nature of a supplemental bill and that there must be a decree  in the supplemental suit itself but still he think that the original suit be  go by the bankruptcy here as at law and yet that such new suit by the assignee  may take nevertheless the benefit of the former suit he therefore refuse the  motion to discharge the order for dismiss the original bill for want of  prosecution Davidson v butler in the Exechequer the that of April a motion be  make to dismiss the bill for want of prosecution unless cause Mr cook now show  for cause that the bill be file for a injunction against the defendant proceed  at law upon certain note which be in the defendant possession and draw by one  baker as the copartner of the plaintiff after the dissolution of the  copartnership for a subsequent debt and at a time the defendant know the  copartnership be dissolve and that the plaintiff become a bankrupt since the  fill the bill he therefore insist saint that the suit be absolute abate and  therefore not liable to be dismiss for which he cite the case of sellas v  Dawson dly that if the bill shall be dismiss yet that it ought not to be with  cost tait v Carwick June that Mr abbot contra say that there be case in the  exchequer where the bill have be dismiss videlicet tait v Carwick and Bramhall  v cross the Lord chief baron say it be the clear establish practice of that  court not to consider bankruptcy as a abatement that the only difficulty arise  from the case in chancery b it as that case do not appear to have be so full  debate on authority they think it ought not to prevail he say that equity  shall follow the practice of the court of law in this respect and that in  reason the mere bankruptcy of the plaintiff ought not to prevent the defendant  from be reimburse if he can for the expense of the suit Hotham baron and  Thompson baron concur and the bill be order to be dismiss with cost see also  lingard v Wegg bro Charles Rep atkins er p