Case Name: THE MAXWELL LAND GRANT AND RAILWAY COMPANY et al. v. GUADALUPE THOMPSON, Adm'x, et al.
Court: Supreme Court of New Mexico
Jurisdiction: New Mexico
Decision Date: 1874-01
Citations: 1 N.M. 603
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE MAXWELL LAND GRANT AND RAILWAY COMPANY et al. v. GUADALUPE THOMPSON, Adm’x, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Mexico Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 603–611

Head Matter:
THE MAXWELL LAND GRANT AND RAILWAY COMPANY et al. v. GUADALUPE THOMPSON, Adm’x, et al.
Paeties to Original Bill in Nature oe Bill oe Review. — In an original bill in the nature of a bill of review and supplement, those only should be made parties as complainants or defendants who have an actual interest, and parties to the original suit who have no interest in the subsequent bill need not be joined; but the rule is otherwise where the bill is purely one of review.
Discretionary Amendments not Reviewable. — Amendments to pleadings which are discretionary with the court trying a cause are not reviewable by the supreme court.
Bill oe Review. — A bill of review corresponds to a writ of error at law and lies only for the purpose of impeaching and reversing or modifying an original decree in whole or in part for errors in law apparent on its face. Per Bristol, J., dissenting.
Idem — What a Test oe Applicability oe. — One of the sure tests of the applicability of a bill of review in any case is the fact that the original decree could be pleaded in bar of the relief sought, if prayed for in an independent proceeding. Per Bristol, J., dissenting.
Idem — Does not Lie to a Decree by Consent. — A bill of review can not be sustained when the original decree was made pursuant to the mutual consent of all the parties where there is no charge of fraud, imposition, surprise, or mistake. Per Bristol, J., dissenting.
Parties to Bill oe Review. — All the parties to the original suit must be made parties to a bill of review, particularly where the decree was by consent. Per Bristol, J., dissenting.
Mistake oe Law as Ground oe Reliee. — A mistake of law by the parties to a decree by consent is not ordinarily a ground of relief in equity. Per Bristol, J., dissenting.
Supplemental Bill in Aid oe a Decree, Proper When. — The law relating to this subject discussed obiter. Per Bristol, J., dissenting.
New Matter Existing at Time oe Original Decree. — New matter existing at the time of a decree and within the knowledge of the parties is no ground for a bill of review or a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review. Per Bristol, J., dissenting.
Appeal. The case so far as material to tbe points decided appears from tbe opinion.
.Ellcins and Gutron, for the complainants and appellees.
B. S. Tompkins, for tbe defendants and appellants.

Opinion:
By Court,
Johnson, J.:
In my opinion, the following are the questions here pre sented on argument for determination: 1. Is tbe bill in this cause purely a bill of review, or is it an original bill in tbe nature of a bill of review and supplement ? [Tbe amended bill begins on page 139 and ends on page 155 of tbe transcript.] After examining tbe allegations of tbe bill, and tbe relief prayed for based tliereou, it is my opinion that said bill is not purely a bill of review, but an original bill in tbe nature of a bill of review and supplement. 2. Were there parties complainant in this bill who should not appear as such, and were parties omitted as defendants who should have been made such ?
It is my opinion that, were tbe bill purely a bill of review, tbe position of the appellants on this point would be sound; but tbe bill being such as I have defined it in my first proposition, it is my opinion that none should have been made parties but those having an actual interest in tbe suit, whether as complainants or defendants; that Maxwell and wife, and the Maxwell Land Grant etc. Company, show actual interest in the subject-matter of the bill, and were therefore properly parties complainant. It also appearing that Sherick and wife, and Hicklin and wife; had conveyed their interests in the subject-matter to Maxwell, it could not be affected by these proceedings, and therefore it is my opinion that Sherick and wife and Hicklin and wife were properly omitted as defendants.
It also appears from the record that 'the appellants did not suggest to the court below, in their answer or otherwise, that there should have been other parties; and it is only here and on argument that appellants have said anything about Sherick and wife and Hicklin and wife in connection with these proceedings.
The relief sought by the complainants in this cause seems to me to be ultimately the perfecting of a compromise between Maxwell and the heirs of Charles Bent, deceased, touching the conveyance of their interests in the lands described to Maxwell, the imperfection having been only as to the manner of conveying the interest of the minor children of Alfred Bent, who had deceased during the pend-ency of the original suit; and also to terminate the trust on bebalf of tbe heirs of Charles Bent, deceased, in the subject-matter. It is not shown here that, in granting the relief sought by the appellees, and making the incidental review of the original cause, the court below prejudiced or in any wise disturbed the interests of any of the parties to the original cause. On the contrary, it appears from bill and exhibits, answer and proofs, that the appellees ought, in equity, to have the relief sought.
In relation to the amendments allowed by the court below, it appearing here that they were such as, by the statutes of this territory, and the rules of practice of our courts, are entirely discretionary with the court trying the cause, they are not reviewable here. Hence, it is my opinion that the decree of the ' court below should be affirmed.