Case ID: howell-np_1/html/0018-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Speed, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wayne Oircuit — In Chancery.
    
    SUSAN CHAPMAN vs. JOHN L. CHAPMAN.
    
      Bills of llevieio — Fraud.
    Bills of review seek to review or re-examine causes upon their merits. A bill which, upon extrinsic facts, aims to vacate a decree, is not a bill of review.
    June Term, 1883.
    The bill in this case was filed for the purpose of obtaining the vacation of a decree obtained by this defendant against this complainant, on the ground that the subpoena was fraudulently served, it being so served as to leave her in ignorance of the pendency of the suit.
    
      ■S'. W. Bui'roughs for the motion.
    
      Ward and Palmer against.
    The defendant herein moves to dismiss ■ the bill on the ground that leave of the Court was not first obtained, as required by Chancery rule No. 101, it being claimed that the present bill is one in the nature of a bill of review.
   Tue Cotjut,

Speed, J.,

Held, that bills of review seek to review or re-examine causes upon their merits.

The present bill does not raise the question as to the merits of the former cause, but aims upon extrinsic facts to vacate the decree.

Although bills in the nature of bills of review, impeaching decrees for fraud, are sometimes inaptly called original bills in the nature of bills of review, (Story’s Eq. Pleading Sec. 426) I am satisfied that the bills referred to in rule 101 are such only as may technically be styled Bills of Review, or bills in the nature of Bills of Review.

The motion is denied, with ten dollars costs.