
    Purvis v. Hill.
    Monday, October 10, 1808.
    Writ oí Error Coram Nobis — Grounds for — Case at Bar. — The death of the lessor of the plaintiff, previous to the judgment in ejectment, is no ground for a writ of error coram nobis, notwithstanding that circumstance was not stated in the record, and no security for costs was given; because an ejectment does not abate by the death of the lessor of the plaintiff.
    This was an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Fredericksburg, rejecting the petition of the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis.
    In May, 1801, a judgment in ejectment, in the name of John Doe, lessee of Henry Hill, was rendered against Purvis, the tenant in possession. At the October term, 1803, Pur-vis petitioned the Court for a writ of error coram nobis, and assigned for error in fact, that Hill, the lessor of the plaintiff, was dead at the time of the rendition of the judgment. The Court refused to grant the prayer of the petition, stated as the ground of the refusal, that the death of Hill, if true, would not have abated the ejectment; that the suit had been tried on its merits ; and that the writ of possession had long'since been awarded.
    Purvis appealed to this Court, and gave bond and security to Hill (the man stated by him to have been dead) for prosecuting the appeal.
    The Attorney-General, for the appellant.
    Botts, for the appellee.
    
      
      Writ of Error Coram Nobis. — For a full discussion of the subject of writs of error coram nobis, see monographic note on “Judgments” appended to Smith v. Charlton, 7 Gratt. 425.
    
   The cause was submitted without argument, the Attorney-General, for the appellant, admitting that the case *of Kinney v. Beverley had solemnly settled the point, that an ejectment did not abate by the death of the lessor of the plaintiff ; but, it having been decided in the case of Carter v. Washington, that security for the costs ought to be given, it might be a question for the consideration of the Court, whether it would not be error to proceed in the ejectment without giving such security.

Tuesday, October 11. By the whole Court, (absent JUDGE LYONS,) the judgment of the District Court was affirmed. 
      
       1 Hen. & Munf. 531.
     
      
       Ante, p. 315.
     
      Appeals — Abatement of — Ejectment—Death of Lessor of Plaintiff, — it vras held in Medley v. Medley, 3 Munf. 191, that an appeal from a judgment in ejectment does not abate by the death of the lessor of the plaintiff, notwithstanding such lessor claimed the land for life only.
     