Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-11-07

This is an appeal from a decree Of the Chan
Gerry Court at TREeWell, sustaining the demurrer
Of the defendant, 10 the compliments BILL
The complainant 10 the holder Of a noie for
800, dollars made by Eldridgs Campbell to Andrew
and Mary Donally, and BY them assigned 10 him J
18th March, 1851. The note was made 10th Febru-
sry, 1851, and due Let January, 1854. The cOnsid
GRAFTON Of the note the interest Of May Don
ally and her SOD Andy in tract Of land descended
10 her from her father, Stephen Hopkins The
amount this note was paid by the maker under
decree ofthe Chancery Court at RogsrsTlls in favor
Of the Bank, to satisfy debt due from Stephen
Hopkins, Jr and perpetual injunction was deereed
against the note. This comp ainant and the other
heirs Of Hopkins and C0mVbell were defendants in
that suit, except the purchaser Campbell and all
being nonresidents regularly proceeded against
under the Statutes on that subject, as we nav sup
pose the decree is not impeseed upon that ground
The object Of this bill is 70 be relieved against that
Decree and allowed to collect the note. Il does not
appear the face of the bill when that decree Was
rendered. This can only be regarded as bill Of
review for errors on the face Of the Decree it is
not pretended that any facts have been discuss
ed and such is liable to several fatal objections
The error complained Of as it seems to be shade we'd
forth in the bill, is that Stephen Hopkins, IT., the
debtor Of the bank did not the part Of the land
for which the note given, but that the same
the consideration for the shares owned by Mrs Don
ally and her son That may be so, but how can We
know It, as the decree stated, finds the fact to be
otherwise, and If that is 50, upon what principle
csn il be corrected by those who were the par
ties and as such have had their day in Court to be
heard, and failed. But Independent Of that, and
even if bill Of review would lie in another Court,
the bill is defective in not exhibiting the record,
which il proposes to review, for the inspection Of
the Court It will not do to call upon the other side
to produce 1.-THE complainant must make it part
Of his case and point out the errors. If the decree
assumes that the note Of Campbell given for the
r O. L
in law but if for that Of the Donalys then it would
be erroneous. In the first case although the fact
might be clearly otherwise il could not be reShed
BY bill Of review. This shows the absolute necessity
for the complainant to present q transcript Of the
record as part Of his case even if his bill would
be fled in a different Court. The limitation uPon
bills Of review is three years from The decree There
is no statement in this bill or any record ezhib
tied by which il can be seen that he IL with
in the time allowed. This should be shown by him
as a part Of his case in order to obtain standing
in Court But if these objections we're removed or
did not exist in the case, the cOmplsinants would
still fail upon the ground that his bill is not fled in
the proper Courts. A bill to review decree upon
the records of the Rogersviils Chsncery Court
not be fled in the Chancery Court at TsEeWelL Il
must be filed in the same Court, as we have be-
fore held in unreported cases Il would seem to
be absurd to allow Court Of concurrent juris-
diction to review the records and DEGREES Of suoth
er upon supposed errors Of law This Vould en-
able parties when dissatisged with the opinion Ct
one chancellor to try their chsEees before another
upon the same questions, at any time within three
years Thus collisions between the different Chan
cherry Courts mould arise, and obstruct the admin
isiraton of justice. Such practice would be ex-
eeedingly expensive, ineonvenient and barrsssng
The reasoning in Deaderiok VS.. Smith Hump 13S
to the evils Of such practice is appropriate 1t
is commended by defendants counsel that this case
falls under the 9TH prOVisio to the 1st Sec Of the
Act Of 1887, Oh. % Cor. s Mich. 2l5 Il is there
provided that the non residents, who are made par
ties By publication, and against whom DEGREES may
have been rendered may appear at any time within
three years, and by petition have theoase reheard
upon certain conditions and in case Of failure, to
appear within that time, such DEGREES shall 'stsnd
absolutely confirmed" II cannot be QurstiOned that
this oOntemplaes an appearance BY petition in the
same Court where the decree is enrolled. and in no
other It would also be necessary under this I OF
t. show in his petition, that be in time that is,
within the three years from the date Of the decree
/ against him. This is probably decisive ground
upon which to place the case if the other objections
we're out Of the way; and is conclusive against the
/ complainant, and sustsins the Judgment Of the
Court, Allowing the demurrer, and dismissing the
/ bin lei the decree be affirmed. CARUTHEEs.