AFTER a decree has been made in a cause, a new original bill cannot be brocha between the same parties, and for the same matters, unless the decree has been obtained by fraud.2

If a party seeks to reverse a decree which has been signed and enrolled, and upon error apparent, or on new facts, or facts discovered since publication passed in the original cause, he must file a made parties to such either as plaintifs or defendants. The Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. z. Seymour. 9 Paige, 538.

1 Whenever a plaintif has a right to revive a suit, he may add to the bal of revivor such supplemental matter as is proper to be added. Pendleton e. Fay, 3 Paize, 214: Manchester r. Mathewson. 2 Rhode Is 416. A bill of revivor and supplement is merely a compound of these two species of balls. Such a bill not only ecatinges a suit that has abated, but supplies any defects in the original bill arising from subsequent events Wescott r. Cady, 5 John. Ch. 242. It must be framed and proceeded upon in the same manner as the two species of bills of which it is compounded Lord Red 80. And the same defences are applicable, that would be, if they were separate. Lake r. Austwicle, 4 Jurist, 314.

If matters contained in a bill of revivor and supplement are irrelevent or improper, the defendant may take advantage of the objection, either by plea, or by demurrer, or by exceptions for impertinence. Pendleton r. Fay, 3 Paige, 204. But the insertion of supplemental matter in a bill of this nature will not authorize the defendant to demur to the whole bill. He should demur to the supplemental matter only. Randolph r. Dickerson, 5 Paige, 517. See Pendleton v. Fay, 3 Paige, 204; Eastman r. Batchelder, 36 N. Hamp. 141.

* Wortley r. Birkhead. 3 Atk. 809; Mit. 84. A bill to impeach a decree for fraud is an original bill in the nature of a bill of review. Ez parte Smith, 34 Ala. 455; Person v. Nevitt, 32 Miss. (3 George) 180. Leave to file a bill of review may be granted upon petition, supported by evidence that the original decree was obtained by fraud. Elliott v. Balcom, 11 Gray, 286.

bill of review. If the decree has not been signed and enrolled, and it is upon error apparent, he is at liberty to present a petition of rehearing. If the decree has not been signed and enrolled, and is sought to be reversed on new facts, or facts discovered since publication passed, the remedy is by a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review. Each of these remedies will be considered in their order.

Chief Baron Gilbert, in his "Forum Romanum," compares a bill of review to an appeal from the prince pronouncing a definitive sentence of the civil and canon law uninformed, to the prince better informed.3

A devisee is not entitled to a bill of review of a decree against the testator, not being in privity with him; neither can an assignee in any case have a bill of review. Only parties or privies, as heirs, executors, or administrators, can ordinarily bring this bill.4

Singleton v. Singleton, 8 B. Monroe, 340; Greenwich Bank v. Loomis, 2 Sand. Ch. 70; Thompson v. Goulding, 5 Allen, 81; Clapp v. Thaxter, 7 Gray, 384; Frazer v. Sypert, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 100; Simpson v. Downs, 5 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 421; Elliott v. Balcom, 11 Gray, 286. This enrolment of the decree is essential to what is called by way of pre-eminence, a Bill of Review. See Cooper Eq. Pl. 91. In most of the State Courts of Equity in America, and certainly in the Courts of the United States, all decrees in Equity, as well as judgments at Law, are matters of record, and are deemed to be enrolled, as of the term of the Court at which they are passed, whether they are actually enrolled or not; so that in those Courts a bill of review is the ordinary and appropriate proceeding. Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303, 310, 311; Whiting v. Bank of United States, 13 Peters, 6, 13; Goodhue v. Churchman, 1 Barb. Ch. 596; Greenwich Bank v. Loomis, 2 Sand. Ch. 70. A bill of review lies only to a final decree. Mackay v. Bell, 2 Munf. 523; Ellzey v. Lane, 2 Hen. & Munf. 589. An interlocutory decree, if erroneous, may be corrected by motion or petition to the Court. Banks v. Anderson, 2 Hen. & Munf. 20; Whiting v. Bank of United States, 13 Peters, 6, 14; Story Eq. Pl. § 634 a. And a bill in the nature of a bill of review lies only after a final decree, and not upon an interlocutory decree. Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 Story C. C. 299. A bill of review is held not to accord with the system of Chancery Practice in Texas. Seguin v. Maverick, 24 Texas, 526. But a petition in the nature of a bill of review, to impeach a judgment for fraud, is maintainable. ib.

2 See Wiser v. Blachly, 2 John. Ch. 489; Mead v. Arms, 3 Vermont, 148; 2 Harr. & John. 230; 4 J. J. Marsh. 500; Robinson v. Sampson, 26 Maine, 11, 13, 14; Baker v. Whiting, 1 Story C. C. 218, 233.

3 For. Rom. 183.

Wyatt P. R. 96; Gilb. For. Rom. 186; Webb v. Pell, 3 Paige, 368; Kennedy v. Bell, Litt. Sel. Ca. 125. And even persons having an interest in the

If a decree is made against a person who had no interest at all in the matter in dispute, or had not such an interest as was sufficient to render the decree against him binding upon some person claiming the same or a similar interest, relief may be obtained against error in the decree by a bill in the nature of a bill of review. Thus, if a decree is made against a tenant for life only, a remainderman in tail or in fee cannot defeat the proceedings against the tenant for life but by a bill, showing the error in the decree, the incompetency in the tenant for life to sustain the suit, and the accruer of his own interest, and thereupon praying that the proceedings in the original cause may be reviewed, and for that purpose that the other party may appear to, and answer this new bill, and that the rights of the parties may be properly ascertained. A bill of this nature, as it does not seek to alter a decree made against the plaintiff himself, or against any person under whom he claims, may be filed without the leave of the Court.1

A party cannot bring a bill of review after a demurrer has been allowed to a former bill of review.2

If upon a bill of review a decree has been reversed, another bill of review may be brought upon the decree of reversal.

After a bill of review has been dismissed, another bill brought by the same party, suggesting further error, was dismissed as irregular.+ After two trials, and a decree to establish the will, a bill of review cause, if not aggrieved by the particular errors assigned in the decree, cannot maintain a bill of review, however injuriously the decree may affect the rights of third persons. Story Eq. PL. § 409; Thomas v. Harvie, 10 Wheaton, 146; Whiting v. Bank of United States, 13 Peters, 6. But with this exception, it may be generally stated, that all the parties to the original bill ought to join in a bl of review. Bank of U. S. v. White, 8 Peters, 252; Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 308; Friley v. Hendricks, 27 Miss. (5 Cush.) 412. Upon a bill filed to contest a will, the verdict of a jury taken therein will be binding on all persons interested in the will, although not parties to the suit; and such persons may come in by a bill in the nature of a bill of review, to review or reverse the decree. Singleton v. Singleton, 8 B. Monroe, 340.

1

1 Mitf. Pl. 83; Webb v. Pell, 1 Paige, 564; Edwardson v. Maseby, 4 J. J. Marsh. 500; Bleight v. M'Ilroy, 4 Monroe, 145. See Creed v. Lancaster Bank, 1 Ohio (State) 1.

Pitt v. Earl Arglass, 1 Vern. 441; Dunny v. Filmore, 1 Vern. 135; Story Eq. Pl. § 418.

Mitf. Pl. 79. See Story Eq. Pl. § 418; Mitf. Eq. Pl. by Jeremy, 88. But see Stafford v. Byran, 2 Paige, 45.

Wyatt P. R. 97.

was brought upon discovery of new matter; another trial was ordered, and a verdict being found for the heir-at-law, the former decree was reversed.1

No objection can be taken to a bill of review, that the plaintiff has enrolled the decree; "because," says Lord Nottingham's MSS., "he can have no error till it be enrolled, and perhaps the defendant will never enrol it."2 If a decree has been taken by consent, a bill of review will not lie against it, for consensus tollit errorem.3

In Fitton v. Macclesfield, it is said, there is no limitation of time for bringing a bill, but that after long acquiescence the Court will not reverse a decree, except upon very apparent errors; and the Court refused to reverse a decree made twenty-two years before the bill of review. It appears, however, that the limitation is twenty years; and that, after twenty years, a bill of review cannot be brought.5 The twenty years are computed from the date of the decree, and not from the time of the enrolment. Though a bill of review cannot in general be brought to reverse a decree 1 Attorney-General v. Turner, Amb. 587.

Cook v. Bamfield, 3 Swanst. 607.

Webb v. Webb, 3 Swanst. 658. See Lansing v. Albany Ins. Co. 1 Hopk. 102; ante, 1540, note, as to decrees by consent. A bill of review will not lie where the plaintiff himself has dismissed his bill. Jones v. Zollicoffer, 1 Car. Law. Repos. 376.

1 Vern. 287.

"In the Courts of the United States, bills of review for errors apparent on the face of decrees, are limited to five years, that being the limitation of writs of error upon judgments at law. Thomas v. Harvie, 10 Wheaton, 146; Story Eq. Pl. § 410. See Noland v. Urmston, 17 Ohio, 170; Gullett v. Housh, 7 Black. 52; Mussie v. Graham, 3 McLean, 41; Boyd v. Vanderkemp, 1 Barb. Ch. 273. It is not necessary to plead that the bill is not filed within the proper time. It ought to appear on the face of the bill that it is so, or that the plaintiff is within the saving of the statute. Sheppard v. Lane, 6 Munf. 529; Story Eq. Pl. 635, and note. See Winchester v. Winchester, 1 Head (Tenn.) 460; United States v. Samperyac, 1 Hemp. 118; Coutee v. Pratt, 9 Md. 67. See Bucknor v. Forker, 7 Dana, 51, where it was held that a bill of review will not be sustained for error of law, after a lapse of time which would bar a writ of error, unless the delay is sufficiently accounted for. Mitchell v. Berry, 1 Met. (Ky.) 602; Creath v. Smith, 20 Mis. (Bennet) 113. The question may arise whether a like limitation applies to bills of review upon newly discovered facts and evidence. See as to this, Story Eq. Pl. § 419; Bencon v. Cutter, 5 J. J. Marsh. 610.

• Deloraine v. Brown, 3 Bro. C. C. 640, 621, (n); Mitf. Pl. 79; Scarisbrick v. Lord Skelmersdale, 4 Younge & Coll. 79, 106.

Wc P. R. H: Kay. Wasson, 17 Ohio, 27.

* Tir. Stay. 3 P. Wns. 371: Young 1. Keighley, 16 Ves 353; Working Bread 3 AL SA

* Beam On L

* L. 1: Young . Keighley, 16 Ves. 350: Perry r. Phelps, 17 Ves. 178; Cooker. Bandel 3 Swans. 47: Xaris. Le Neve, 3 Atk. 34; Caller r. Shields, 2 Stev & Part 417: Love 1. Blewit 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 118, 119; Story Eq. PL. § 44: Dexter r. Armoid, 5 Mason, 313: Triplett . Wilson, 6 Cali, 147; Kennedy r. Ball Lin Sel Ca 125: Quarrier r. Carter, 4 Hen. & Mun£ 242; Wiser 1. Blachly, 2 Jiem. Ch. 488; Mead r. Arms, 3 Vermont, 148; Edwardson r. Maseby. 4 J. J. Marsi, 500; Brewer r. Bowman, 3 J. J. Marsh 492; Hollingsworth r. M'Donald, 2 Harr. & John. 230; Ler r. Roath, 3 How. (Miss) 276; Bledsoe 1. Carr. 19 Yerger, 55; Massier. Graham, 3 McLean, 41; Guliet r. Housh. 7 Blackford, 52: United States r. Samperyac, 1 Hemp. 118; Foy r. Foy, 25 Miss. 207. These two causes for a bill of review may properly be joined in the same bal Winchester r. Winchester, 1 Head (Tenn.) 460. To authorize a bül of review for new matter which has arisen in time after the decree," it must be matter which was in existence at the time the decree was rendered, but was n known to the party till afterwards. Bledsoe r. Carr, 10 Yerger, 55; Winchester r. Winchester, ubi supra. Such a bill will lie on the discovery of additional record evidence. United States v. Samperyac, 1 Hemp. 118; Bush v. Madeira, 14 B. Monr. (Ky.) 212. In South Carolina, a bill of review does not lie for error in law apparent upon the face of the decree. Manigalt r. Deas, 1 Bailey Eq

284.

$3 Swanst. 607.