SUPPLEMENTAL BILL. In Equity Prac tice. A bill brought as an addition to an original bill to supply some defect in its orig inal frame or structure which cannot be sup plied by amendment. See Stafford v. How lett, 1 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 200 ; Walker v. Gil bert, 7 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 456; Cunning ham's Adin'r v. Rogers, 14 Ala. 147. It may be brought by a plaintiff or defendant ; 2 Ball & B. 140 ; Baker v. Whiting, 1 Sto. 218, Fed. Cas. No. 786; and as well after, as be fore, a decree; O'Hara v. Shepherd, 3 Md Ch. Dec. 306; 1 Macn. & G. 405; Story, Eq. P]. § 338 ; .Secor v. Singleton, 41 Fed. 725 ; but must be within a reasonable time; Wood ruff's Ex'rs v. Brugh, 6 N. J. Eq. 465.
If there has been a change of interest in a pending equity suit, the proper method to introduce another party or to substitute one party for another, is by a supplemental bill or by an original bill in• the nature of a supplemental bill ; Ross v. City of Ft. Wayne, 63 Fed. 466, 11 C. C. A. 288, 24 U. S. App. 113.
A supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review cannot be entertained where no new facts pertinent to the litigation are dis cussed except such as were known to the complainants at the date of the original de cree ; City of Omaha v. Redick, 63 Fed. 1, 11 C. C. A. 1, 27 U. S. App. 204.
It may be filed when a necessary party has been omitted; 6 Madd. 369 ; Ensworth v. Lambert, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 605; Robert son v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 171, 1 S. W. 781; to introduce a party, who has acquired rights subsequent to the filing of the orig inal bill ; Campbell v. Polk Co., 3 Ia. 472 ; when, after the parties are at issue and witnesses have been examined, some point not already made seems to be necessary, or some additional discovery is found requisite ; Stafford v. Howlett, 1 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 200; when new events referring to and supporting the rights and interests already mentioned have occurred subsequently to the filing of the bill ; Story, Eq. Pl. 336; 5 Beay. 253; for the statement only of facts and circumstanc es material and beneficial to the merits, and not merely matters of evidence ; Jenkins v.
Eldredge, 3 Sto. 299, Fed. Cas. No. 7,267; when, after a decision has been made on the original bill, it becomes necessary to bring other matter before the court to get the full effect of it ; Story, Eq. Pl. § 336; when a ma terial fact, which existed before the filing of the bill, has been omitted, and it can no longer be introduced by way of amendment ; Ridgeway v. Toram, 2 Md. Ch. Dec. 303; Mitf. Ch. Pl. 55, 61, 325; but only by special leave of court, when it seeks to change the original structure of the bill and introduce a new and different case ; 4 Sim. 76, 628 ; Dias v. Merle, 4 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 259. Where, after a final decree, a person who has succeeded to the interest of the complain ant in such manner as to entitle him to the full benefit of the decree, finds it necessary to invoke further action to obtain such ben efit, he may file a supplemental bill in the original suit ; Secor Singleton, 41 Fed. 725 ; but when an executor is substituted as a par ty in place of his decedent, he need not file a supplemental pleading; Equitable Life As sur. Soc. v. Trimble, 83 Fed. 85, 27 C. C. A. 404. After a decree disposing of the issues, the filing of a new bill by other parties, in volving other issues, although connected with the subject-matter of the original litigation, is to be considered a new litigation, although styled a "supplemental bill" and permitted to be filed in the original cause, and the com plainant in the original cause is entitled to notice, and will not be bound without it ; Great Western Tel. Co. v. Purdy, 162 U. S.
329, 16 Sup. Ct. 810, 40 L. Ed. 986. And a supplemental bill filed upon leave granted and notice, which makes an essentially dif ferent case from that contemplated in the order 'granting leave to file it, will be ordered to be taken from the files ; Stockton v. To bacco Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 400, 32 Atl. 261.