Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1867-11-27
SUPREME COURT 0PINI0N.
kNoxyILLE, TENNESSEE, SEPTEMBER TERN, 1867.
THOMAS H. coIDwrrr, ATTORNEY GENERAL AND srronrrn.
DAVID 7. PATTERSON AND S. NJ. SHAVER vs.. REusEN


| DAVID T. PATTERSON AND S. NJ. SHAVER vs. REUBEN
ARNOLD.
Inc compainans filed their bill in Chancery Court AT
SebtJ ~ 1 Ss3s' t9e defendant alleging that he
aue D note and to Shaver in the Of three
ana seventy three dollars sixty cents and An scoon ~
the sum Of hundred fifty dollars for painting non
TRAIT The bill alleges that he absconds or keeps sav
Greene county or the limits State OF Tennessee:
Ordinary process OF law served upon him
s an which yas issued and levied on his real
% on ne seventeenth Of June 1865. Publication was or
uered ln newspaper At the November Term Iss5 n an
At the March RnIe sss N s the dessd
Tor and set down for hearing At the Nav Term
The decree recite that said Arnold had aed fran tho
- IRENE or So sosconds or oonceals himself the
has been Gully made &C., &c. decree was rem
dered for the ebt and and sale of the property at
9ched ordered On the 9Th February 1857 the demand
e s Petton Tor writ Of error cOramnobis, which was
petition substantially petitioner was net an abseons
Nj Al the time Of filing the bill ne resided the
OF NoTth carolina that ne left the county Of Greene
openly with the declared intention of leaving the State in
eountTythat said debts are unjust me dsbt 81 pi
patterson payable in bsnksbe currency The aocount Of
foregoing facts stated in petition were assigned in
ants the nsito5 @ iooi. On motion OF the complain
appealed. ''" INV u''enD"h'
This petition undr the provisions of the Coda
oO WGeh provides ANY aggrievedlby the County Cir
cult or Chancery Courts by error in fact
bis Sec provides the relief embraced sv .
confined to errors Of fact contained in the proceedings
which the person asking relief has had notice. or which
he prevented by disability from showing or Correcting
nv
accident, mistake fraud without fault on hs mart
from the state Of facts presented by this pson are
settled BY this Court case Of Crawford vs. wiliia
al appears TO be that Of fact which render
erroneous must be would have precIndsS
the rendition Of such judgment the had udeialiy an
re- a. lG3er trial that nothing can be assigned
suit This rule although established before the Code l. not
restricted but is enlarged embraces cases Of accident
surprise mistake fraud without fault on part of the
pant Does this case present such Of brings
a IhorlLing the granting Of thu writ
The petitioner assigned Of fact he was not
That ne was living in the State North Caro-
the defendant nonresident or has removed b1s.If oT
property out Of the State the Judgment decree y dsn
ause shown within twelve months thereafter 80 as to make
us defence by sec 559 al other cases Of Judgment
ground upon which the attachment Issued but nav
within twelve months commence suit upon he bond A.
he provisions sect ons in case where the dsft
descrbedIn the bill Nonresident debtor he With
twelve months appear and set aside the Judgment good
When the issuance attachment Is based upon the
e can only the bond. The act assigned
ie seeks to the decree deny put in issue the
rounds upon which the attachment Issued, which is ex
ressy precluded from doing BY go Of Code There
as not before the Court by sam@ops bus ~ alleged He
laking defence. ''O" &c
II is insisted argument the does not show y.b
alton made II the fact be az error OF snd
o. fact The errors assigned in the petition are all ques
Ds tha hl been passed upon BY the Court there are
-rors existing IN the record authorizing the decree
ny tiVi5 ~ iaH ana not Of TACT, and he
revising tribunal The assigned were All sdi,i
ted "a iormer suit The appeal the decree OF ba -
ancor n Diminishing the petition did not brag 10 bis CT
e record o. the original suit Of Patterson and Others "a
,ainst Arnold in the Ohancsry Court 49, i7
The object Of the writ 70 correct u. err,r ~ e.
Pc Court could not look 70 the Law arising u
record hence upon the dismissal the pson AMI a. m
ms Court cannot revise che original decree b1 es VI
~ IooA 20 ine matters arising on the pstition.
Inc appeal must be taken % apply only sucb
We been appealed from and the appeal in this cas. al,
ought up for revssl The action ofhsChsnosor in sj.n.
e the petition Coldwell 500 hence ths original sftss
M suit rot being here by tbs appeal cansot set int
original decree settling tbs ghts Of parties INTO ,r
. do 20 would authorize the Court upon rrit -, - 80
anlnoDs 70 revise s judgment upon .tfsr, - IL b
sing upon the record This proceeding h ~
oIs o. et o. hich the party prevented by sss,f
initiate Iaud or want Of notice from 1,skfnz a. ira
aPPes neee.ssy brought The record Of The orr tina
a sun 70 THIS court 70 adiudcae errors 81 go
ned, bat for ether purpose IN tbr. ss $780,. - -, vii
nat record the petitioner entitled his writ Of error
hey cannot be looked 70 in determining the matters ~ for
or assig IN this petition. - | ~
oows therefore that there error In the decree an,
.ncslior dsmissins the petition and it viii b. Affirmed
true copy. sHACKLEFoRD
\ p. a.. Judge.