
    Paradise's Administrators v. Cole and Henderson.
    Decided, Nov. 5th, 1818.
    1. Insane Person — Suit against Committee — Revival of, — Pending' a suit against the Committee of an insane person, if the latter die, and a scire facias to revive the suit he issued against his administrators, who thereupon appear by Counsel, and go to trial, on the issue joined between the plaintiffs and the Committee; they cannot take objection in the appellate Court, that the suit ought not to have been revived against them.
    2. Same — Same — Same. — Quaere. Whether a suit against the Committee of an insane person may not properly be revived against the administrators of such person, in the event of his dying during it’s pendency? «
    A Suit at law was brought by the appeL lees, in the Hustings Court of Williamsburg, against William M. Candlish Committee of Lucy L. Paradise an insane person, who died after issue was joined. The appellants having administered on her estate, a scire facias was issued to revive the suit against them. The parties afterwards came by their Attornies; a jury was sworn to try *the issue joined; a verdict was rendered, and judgment thereupon, for the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed to the Superior Court of James City County, which affirmed the Judgment; and then they appealed to this Court.
    Leigh for the Appellants.
    The scire facias was improperly issued, there being no provision for this case, in the Act of Assembly concerning abatements. The suit being not against Lucy L. Paradise herself, but William M’Candlish her Committee, it could not, when she died, be revived against her administrators.
    Call for the Appellees.
    Upon the equity of the several Acts of Assembly on this subject, the suit was properly revived. But, if not, there should have been a plea in abatement to the Scire facias; instead of which, the administrators appeared, and went to trial without objection.
    Leigh in reply.
    An express Act of Assembly was necessary to authorise a revival against an administrator de bonis non. Now this is a stronger case; for a Committee does not stand in the same situation as an executor or administrator. The Committee is not bound to regard the dignity of debts: the executor or administrator is.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Insanity” appended to Boswell v. Com., 20 Gratt 860.
      See principal case cited in Hamlin v. Atkinson. 6 Rand. 578.
    
    
      
       Edit, of 1808, c. 101, p. 126.
    
   By the Court,

the Judgment was affirmed.  