Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-01-28

them Of declaring the whole proceedings vsI No. "a IL
CISpeery or oher court Of seaeaI jars5sn.
dcion Of TIE subject matter % HEaton aeqirsa n
dcon the parties that third parties under 10
Judgments and deress its proceedings cannot lie held vsd
sftsr anal disposition o. aesae Ana q srspss A.
material shether the jurisdiction be inherent e stsatoy pro-
yidd the statute te Of general and plbc nature To as
may e tat Tor consequences court not responsis
ty be looked to- that autbortaVey dAras
thasbssn urged upo some general expressions in eeenfsy
Eriie ;, that when cree has been ne pr eonplain
may upon reversal he put situation which be
thus gsss S1 o1bs az Mr. strv in - 30 ~ - SOW
We apprhend relates The original parties . the dec
lie only taking al tDetion general between he deeres net
executed which beu n gisen
larger op sustained By authority. NoFY in thsess
no grievance eonplains Of under the execution Of The or
maj decree BY one OF The parties against another AID evidently
me purchasers or some Of eu made parties y aect them
and they alone e aaect Hareverssi not % ct
esrs in this ia would idle and uagaory possibly
hereafter embarrassing. II is 70 aeect them and them Alone
OF first impression to too mucl to expect
hat purchaser at ChsnoTy sale should be bound to take
had pursued tn authority with technical nicely and resuls
% en- an ,9s nitric s,a, q Ch9nssTy law as n ad
might be visited upon him, not Ehen the fresh
end o. long life, upon children is ds.f il would
s9FoE burden and check upon public le that would Ar
ally clog the wheels O -lc uce, and iniura
interests o. parties IL H. pon this question. however,
l AhS LEROY 20 Is enc Ehsle nI vs red - Heneu q
inPea1h decree s during his ntnc Tor fraud and s0-
Relesialc in the Law % op. there
PAL 5een 62ih fraud ind error 10 the oai pro0esnss ne
confess sitter considering this good daI uink would
too nauch tas purchaser under decree d tat decsp
ls5k into all secrcanistanoes ID bs ia
must 90 through all tue proceedings fem the bsgnnng The
all its parts and haz would be impossible all 10 any
esp7ct Tie eases aarant such opinion. On he conta
As lag a. can hnd he general Impression thy give e thai ne
pa chaser has right 70 presume that The court MS tzkn the
il has that Investigation properly aecrse taen Be Is
% see that this is adree binding the parties cisinn
court In such case e e6neia hat sSoash me s1, s
be erroneous the title Of the purchaser nvaHa
original in the natus Of hin Of review, and frsps on dis &C.
count stronger than the before die court.
In tbs opinion Of Lord Reesi- reers the case n
Ls3d vs. JobHss before Lord Edon Oh y and avs
th'I It was July considered and Ehere irrsgEary n
yet Lorn hdon conceived that TIE title Of purchaser sosi Ii
prOtecd for that purchaser had prsaaie that he
court had done right Ihess approval
BY Chancellor Kent in Demming smith, ID ca Re-
10 the case Of WI ting ct al v, the Rank 7 Oh P, n
decided ~ Judge Story, the bill though getr in oru
in bill Of review Il the ~
er hi an irterestir he .n,l snII T6 i.rro y, ei
made before Whiting the sfterEds ut vio E
against bis heirs In thu original Bcknrxe had
ben made party who the s should properly have bes
parry speaking the creesurs As ansi ne =
Judge The dar had right appeal that de-
final upon the merits as soon as IL Poncun, s
order prevent irreParahle mischief Themselves For
the sale had been completed under The decree, The the
purchaser would Dot have been overroun, or inyi
by reversal Of tbs decrse. Again speaking Brrckn-
this any there he being to the prejudice Of com
panarts cannot furnish ground for them H. maintain he
pies Of equity claim reversal Of decree upon lin q EisE,
unless he has beer aeysd BY it, whatever may his
rights insist the the original hsriny as
peal" As to the omission 10 revive against Willing heirs The
Judge f then The original decree uuobjectoaabs
conclusive has been fraud subssquent
ale, pursuant 10 that decree; and II there has heen legal
sense" his refers te sale under which the property pro-
1ab saerfced9 mo preuie Of b rights Of the plain
original the sale then. although there Eas
revy0r there is upon which ti Of
entte the parties reversal Without Say hsther
the 'doe5 ut the
which the proceeding
lndsr the original Decree Co that SAIL which the present
eeks to rsel ought to te reversed The prin
hills review. In keu lucky.
stockton St. Marsh page 6 other OF KereevaI
Ert Of the writ Of error is seyed IN Kent1cky
rieE There Is cited in comPainants brief, which
sould dt view to be nconct sth this doctrine,
which, when rightly looked IS BY at variance via
where administrator 20 estate had purchased ths
Of his niestas fraudulsnty unier
-w and t'e ale Sc. aside re aim as In no sess
d5 purchaser Being original ary he had actual
Ire Of all the prOceers and guilty. also Of acs 81 bad
In the case nov before court Ble oiisr orevsz and
verai rs manifsty tn aGect the purchases The sale Ne
charged against them, against c1y else Tha
not shown 90 have been sv
record unless it he grievance tst the property has
value II hs reversal not t0aect the Vuriasfs It goud
litigation ani Embarrassment, bui which result in Injury
o a 70 concerned
II Is urged hlusvr N the court can ne-r look u couse
ueucss, the statements tie bl OF except far
those statements ridy connected with the question q
Ia she hrt pTopO ion, do ungualiey
sDt, think sustained IN hi boh By and
unorty the second assent Wuou affecting the
lusons o Fhich are brought.
Upon whole matter en nion that there
the decree OF Chancellor ut leave properly
eused to this as mt Of review Tor matter upon
proof when filed, apparent the ace
( the record it was properly dismissed -,
True copy J. P. CLARK, Clerk Special Judge.ett