Case Name: Mary Nolan vs. Samuel Urmston
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1848-12
Citations: 17 Ohio 170
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Nolan vs. Samuel Urmston.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 17
Pages: 170–171

Head Matter:
Mary Nolan vs. Samuel Urmston.
A Bill of Review may be filed within five years from the day on which the decree sought to be reversed; was rendered3 the time tobe counted from the day of the rendition of the decree; and not from the first day of the Term.
This is a Bill of Review, reserved in Hamilton County.
The plea avers that the bill of review was not filed, nor was process in the cause sued out, or served, within five years after the rendering of the decree sought to be reversed.
Replication, that the bill of review was filed within five years next after rendering the decree, &c.
The facts are, that the decree in the. original case was rendered at the April Term, 1841, of the Supreme Court of Hamilton county. The Supreme Court commenced its session, in that year, on the second day of April.
The bill of review was' filed on the 23d day of April, 1846; subpoena was issued February 22d, 1847, and served April 22d, in the same year.
The decree was rendered and recorded, in the original case, at a late period in the Term, and after the 23d of April.
Edward Senna, for Complainant in Review.
Chase &f Ball, for Defendant.

Opinion:
Read, 3.
The statute provides that a bill of review may be filed, " at any time within five years next after rendering such decree."
It is contended in support of the plea, that all judgments and decrees are of the first day of the Term. For some purposes, the statute gives them effect from the first day of the Term, although rendered at a subsequent day. But they would not have this effect, unless the statute, in express words, gave them such effect; or unless, for the purpose of justice, the fiction that the Term was but one day, was applied. But this is never permitted to prevail, when its application would cut off a distinct right.
The statute gives every party a right to file a bill of review, within five years next after rendering such decree. A decree is not in fact rendered, until the day it is pronounced and entered ; from that day, within five years next after, a bill of review may be filed. Time is counted from the day on which the decree is pronounced or rendered, and the act to be done, is the filing of the bill. This is all; it is not necessary that service, of process should be had, or even that it should be issued, to bring the party in time. True, after the bill has been filed, and jurisdiction thus acquired, it should be prosecuted with due diligence. But in this case, the bill was filed in time, and process issued and returned to the next Term of the Supreme Court. This is diligent prosecution. Plea Overruled.