
    CRAIG VS. CARSWELL’S ex’r.
    1. Parties, defendants, to a chancery cause, against whom it is dismissed, or who are content with the decree, are not necessarily, to be joined and made parties to a writ of error, taken by one defendant — nor will the Court in such case, it appearing that they have no interest, order a severance, or compel a joinder.
    In this case, a bill in chancery was filed in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale, by Styles, executor of Carswell, against Craig, Dawson and Blow.
    The object of the bill was to enforce the collection of a balance due to complainant, as executor, on a note executed by Craig, and which had been trans-fered by the defendant, Dawson, in whose hands it was placed for collection, to Blow, in payment of Dawson’s individual debt.
    The cause was heard on the bill, and the answers of the defendants, and thereon the chancellor rendered a decree — dismissing the bill as to Blow, and adjudging a certain amount against Craig and Dawson.
    Craig haying taken a writ of error, to. reverse this decree, and Blow having died while the cause was depending — a motion was made for a severance, or that the representatives of Blow be' made parties.
   Lipscomb, C. J.

The bill was filed by the executor of Carswell, against Craig, Blow and Dawson.

On the final hearing, it was dismissed, as to Blow; and a decree for upwards of a thousand dollars, entered up against Craig, and for about two hundred dollars, against Dawson. The' cause was brought into this Court for a revision, by a writ of error, iri the name, and in behalf of Craig, who is dissatisfied with the decree; none of the other parties appear to be discontented, or seek to have it reversed or altered : and the suit stands in this Court in the name of Craig only. Since th.e bringing of the writ of error, and since the last term, it is now suggested, that Blow has departed this life. The counsel for the executor of Carswell, makes the suggestion, and asks, if it should be the opinion of the Court, that Blow was a party to the suit in this Court, that his representatives should either be made parties, or that there should be a severance. We believe, that neither Blow nor Dawson are parties here; that neither of them have complained of the decree below, and that there is no necessity for bringing in the representatives of Blow, or for severing from them, as he was not a party.  