The federal equity rule No. 71 (in effect Feb. 1, 1913, 33 Sup. Ct. xxxviii) provides that decrees shall not recite the pleadings nor any other prior proceedings.
Final Decree. One which finally disposes of a cause, so that nothing further is left for the court to adjudicate. See 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. 994, n.
A decree which determines the particular cause. It is not confined to those which ter minate all litigation on the same right. 1 Kent 316.
A decree which leaves the case in such con dition that, if on appeal there be an affirm ance, nothing remains for the court below, but to execute it. Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232, 10 Sup. Ct. 745, 34 L. Ed. 153; Mower v. Fletcher, 114 U. S. 127, 5 Sup. Ct. 799, 29 L. Ed. 117; see Haseltine v. Central Bank, 183 U. S. 131, 22 Sup. Ct. 49, 46 L. Ed. 117.
A decree which disposes ultimately of. the suit. Ad. Eq. 375a After such decree has been pronounced, the cause is at an end, and no father hearing can be had ; id. 388; Lakin v. Lawrence, 195 Mass. 27, 80 N. E. 578.
No court can reverse or annul its decree after the term in which it was entered, nor can a decree be changed or modified so as substantially to vary or affect it ; Illinois v. R. Co., 184 U. S. 77, 22 Sup. Ct. 300, 46 L. Ed. 440, citing prior cases ; [1904] 1 K. B. 6; Bissell Carpet-Sweeper Co. v. Sweeper Co., 72 Fed. 545, 19 C. C. A. 25; Marshall En gine Co. v. Engine Co., 203 Mass. 410, 89 N. E. 548 ; nor even on petition for rehearing where error in the findings is shown ; Pettit v. One Steel Lighter. 104 Fed. 1002; except to correct clerical mistakes; Cameron v. Mc Roberts, 3 Wheat. 591; Illinois v. R. Co., 184 U. S. 77, 22 Sup. Ct. 300, 46 L. Ed. 440 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 694; or to reinstate a cause dismissed by mistake; id. The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 10, 6 L. Ed. 531; and a mistake in an order may be rectified while an appeal is pending; [1903] P. 88. In equity jurisdic tion of the cause is sometimes retained to make further orders for executing the decree which may result in modifying details of the original decree ; Mootry v. Grayson, 104 Fed. 613, 44 C. C. A. 83; and in admiralty a bill of review may be allowed after the term, on petition of the libellant, who, being him self free from fraud or negligence, is the victim of what is equivalent to fraud; Hall v. Chisholm, 117 Fed. 807, 55 C. C. A. 31, where the cases are reviewed ; In this case certiorari was refused; Chisholm v. Hall,
191 U. S. 571, 24 Sup. Ct. 843, 48 L. Ed. 307.
A decree may be impeached for fraud in obtaining it, but for this purpose a bill of review is not available, being a continuance of the original litigation ; an original bill must be resorted to as a new and independ ent litigation and it will lie pending an ap peal from the original decree; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 155 Fed. 524, 84 C. C. A. 38. In sueh case relief can be granted only on the ground of fraud in procuring the decree and not of error in granting it; Mc Sherry Mfg. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 160 Fed. 948, 89 C. C. A. 26.
Prior to the establishment of the circuit courts of appeals there was an appeal to the United States supreme court only from final decrees of the circuit courts ; U. S. Rev. Stat. § 692 ; and the same is still true of appeals from those courts; U. S. Rev. Stat. 1 Supp. 903; except that special provision is made for an appeal within a limited time directly to the circuit court of appeals from an order granting or refusing an inter locutory injunction or appointing a receiver, notwithstanding that an appeal from a final decree might be taken directly to the su preme court; Jud. Code § 129, U. S. Comp. St. Supp. (1911) 194. An order modifying an interlocutory decree for a broad per petual injunction, so as to permit a limit ed sale of the articles of which the sale was restrained, is appealable under this act ; Bissell Carpet-Sweeper Co. v. Sweeper Co., 72 Fed. 545, 19 C. C. A. 25, where. the right of appeal and the different kinds of, de crees in England and the United States are elaborately discussed. The omission of the word "final" in section 5 of the Act of March 3, 1891, does not extend, the right of appeal to any question of jurisdiction in ad vance of final judgment or decree; McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 12 Sup. Ct. 118, 35 L. Ed. 893. Accordingly, the question what is a final decree is one of constant occurrence and importance as determining the jurisdic tion of the appellate courts. The same question arises under the constitutional and statutory regulations of appeals in many of the states, although in some of them the right of appeal is not limited to final de crees ; e. g. Delaware, where it is extended to interlocutory decrees or orders, if prayed before the first day of the following term, while it may be taken from a final decree within two years after it is signed.