A suit against a receiver does not abate by reason of his discharge; Baer v. McCullough, 176 N. Y. 97, 68 N. E. 129; Dougherty v. King, 165 N. Y. 657, 59 N. E. 1121; or his death ; Pickett v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 60 S. C. 477, 38 S. E. 160 ; nor of an order to return the property to the corporation owner ; Cowen v. Merriman, 17 App. D. C. 186.
When, pending suit by a guardian, the heir comes of age, there is no abatement and no need of revival; the guardian may be dis charged; Shattuck v. Wolf, 72 Kan. 366, 83 Pac. 1093.
Coverture of the plaintiff is pleadable in abatement; Corn. Dig. Abt. E, 6; Bac. Abr. Abt. G; Co. Litt. 132; 3 Term 631; 1 Chit. Pl. 439; Hayden v. Attleborough, 7 Gray (Mass.) 338; though occurring after suit brought; 3 Bla. Com. 316; Bac. Abr. Abt. 9 ; Wilson v. Hamilton, 4 S. & R. (Pa.) 238; Newell v. Marcy, 17 Mass. 342 ; 6 Term 265 ; Gerard v. Pierce, 5 N. C. 161; Guphill v. Is bell, 1 Bailey (S. C.) 369; and see Hastings v. McKinley, 1 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 273 ; but not after plea in bar, unless the marriage arose after the plea in bar ; Northum v. Kellogg, 15 Conn. 569 ; but in that case the defendant must not suffer a continuance to intervene between the happening of this new matter, or its coming to his knowledge, and his pleading it; McCoul v. Lekamp, 2 Wheat. (U. S.) 111, 4 L. Ed. 197 ; Swan v. Wilkin son, 14 Mass. 295 ; Templeton v. Clary, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 288; Perry v. Boileau, 10 S. & R. (Pa.) 208 ; Lyman v. Albee, 7 Vt. 508; Gatewood v. Tunk, 3 Bibb (Ky.) 246. And it cannot be otherwise objected to if she sues for a cause of action that would sur vive to her on the death of her husband ; 12 M. & W. 97 ; Perry v. Boileau, 10 S. & R. (Pa.) 208. An action for damages for as sault by a female plaintiff does not abate on her marriage ; Stevens v. Friedman, 58 W. Va. 78, 51 S. E. 132. Where she sues, not having any interest, the defence is one of substance, and may be pleaded in bar, by de murrer, or on the general issue ; 4 Term 361; 1 H. Bla. 108; Cro. Jac. 644, whether she sues jointly or alone. So also where coverture avoids the contract or instrument, it is matter in bar ; Steer v. Steer, 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 379.
Where a feme covert is sued without her husband for a cause of action that would survive against her, as upon a contract made before, or a tort committed after, marriage, the coverture is pleadable in abatement; 3 Term 626; and not otherwise ; 9 M. & W.
299; Com. Dig. Abt. F, 2. If the marriage takes place pending the action, it cannot be pleaded ; 2 Ld. Raym. 1525; Crockett v. Ross, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 445; City Council v. Van Roven, 2 McCord (S. C.) 469. It must be pleaded by the feme in person ; 2 Saund. 209 b. Any thing which suspends the cov erture suspends also the right to plead it; Com. Dig. Abt. F, 2, § 3 ; Co. Litt. 132 b; 1 B. & P. 358 ; Gregory v. Paul, 15 Mass. 31. Marriage of a female defendant in error aft er writ has been duly served, will not abate suit, but it will proceed as if she were still unmarried; United States Mut. Ace. Ass'n v. Weller, 30 Fla. 210, 11 South. 786.
Death of the plaintiff before purchase of the writ may be pleaded in abatement; 1 Archb. C. P. 304; Cora. Dig. Abt. E, 17; Camden' v. Robertson, 2 Scam. (Ill.) 507; Hurst v. Fisher, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 438 ; Humph reys v. Irvine, 6 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 205 ; Alexander v. Davidson, 2 McMul. (S. C.) 49. So may the death of a sole plaintiff who dies pending his suit at common law; Bac. Abr. Abt. F ; Archer v. Colly, 4 Hen. & 410 ; Livingston v. Abel, 2 Root (Conn.) 57 ; Smith v. Manning, 9 Mass. 422 ; Drago v. Stead, 2 (Va.) 454 ; Ryder v. Rob inson, 2 Greenl. (Me.) 127. Otherwise now by statute, in most cases, in most if not all the states, and in England since 1852. Un der some statutes the right to revive depends upon the exercise of a sound discretion by the court; Hayden v. Huff, 62 Neb. 375, 87 N. W. 184; Beach v. Reynolds, 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 506.
The right to revive an action is solely a statutory right; Ashby v. Harrison's Com mittee, 1 Pat. & H. (Va.) 1. It is a question of right, not of procedure, and is governed by the lex for*: Martin's Adm'r v. R. Co., 151 U. S. 673, 14 Sup. Ct. 533, 38 L. Ed. 311; Baltimore & Q. R. Co. v. Joy, 173 U. S. 226, 19 Sup. Ct. 387, 43 L. Ed. 677; Martin v. R. Co., 142 Fed. 650, 73 C. C. A. 646, 6 Ann. Cas. 582; Sanders' Adm'x v. R. Co., 111 Fed. 708, 49 C. C. A. 565; Richardson v. R. Co., 98 Mass. 85; Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. v. Good man, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 109, 48 S. W. 778; Austin's Adm'r v. Ry. Co., 122 Ky. 304, 91 S. W. 742, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 756; Stratton's Independence v. Dines, 126 Fed. 968; Whit ten v. Bennett, 77 Fed. 271.