OF REVIEW. One which is brought to have a decree of the court reviewed, al tered, or reversed.
It Is only brought after enrollment; 1 Ch. Cas. 54; 3 P. Will. 371; Simpson v. Downs, 6 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 421; 1 Story, Eq. Pl. § 403 ; and is thus distin guished from a bill in the nature of a bill in re view, or- a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill in review ; Dexter v. Arnold, 6 Mas. 303, Fed. Cas. No. 3856; Greenwich Bank v. Loomis, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 70; Gilbert, For. Rom. c. 10, p. 182.
It must be brought either for error in point of law; Wiser v. Blachly, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 488; Cooper, Eq. Pl. 89 ; or for some new Matter of fact, relevant to the case, dis covered since' publication passed in the cause, and which could not, with reasonable dili gence, have been discovered before ; Irwin v. Meyrose, 7 Fed. 533 ; Putnam v. Day, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 60, 22 L. Ed. 764; Buffington v. Harvey, 95 U. S. 99, 24 L. Ed. 381; Wiser v. Blachly, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 488 ; see U. S. v. Samperyac, 1 Hempt. 118, Fed. Cas. No. 16,216 a; Stevens v. Dewey, 27 Vt. 638 ; Foy v. Foy, 25 Miss. 207; Cocks v. Copenhaver, 126 Fed. 145, 61.C. C. A. 211; Hill v. Phelps, 101 Fed. 650, 41 C. C. A. 569 ; or to correct an error apparent on the face of a decree in the original suit ; Osborne v. Land & Town Co., 178 U. S. 22, 20 Sup. Ct. 860, 44 L. Ed. 961; where there are no disputed questions of fact; Smyth v. Fitzsimmons, 97 Ala. 451, 12 South. 48.
If based on newly discovered evidence it requires leave of court; Buckingham v. Corning, 29 N. J. Eq. 238 ; Barton v. Bar bour, 104 U. S. 126, 26 L. Ed. 672; Reynolds v. R. Co., 42 Fla. 387, 28 South. 861; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 183 U. S. 471, 22 Sup. Ct. 176, 46 L. Ed. 283 ; the evidence must be new or else such as the party could not by diligence have known, and failure to produce it sooner must be explained ; it must be controlling, not cumulative ; Acord v. Corporation, 156 Fed. 989; Kern v. Wyatt & Co., 89 Va. 885, 17 S. E. 549. Granting it is discretionary with the court, and is sub ject to review ; Reynolds v. R. Co., 42 Fla.
387, 28 South. 861; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 183 U. S. 471, 22 Sup. Ct. 176, 46 L. Ed. 283 ; it will be refused for laches ; Taylor v. Easton, 180 Fed. 363, 103 C. C. A. 509; or if granting it would work hardship to innocent parties ; Acord v. Corporation, 156 Fed. 989 ; Ricker v. Powell, 100 U. S. 104, 25 L. Ed. 527 ; if it is based upon fraud it is a matter of right ; Cox v. Bank (Tenn.) 63 S. W. 237 ; so if filed for error of law appearing on the face of the record ; Wood v. Wood, 59 Ark. 441, 27 S. W. 641, 28 L. R, A. 157, 43 Am. St. Rep. 42; Denson v. Den son, 33 Miss. 560; a bill may join both error in law and newly discovered evidence ; Acord v. Corporation, 156 Fed. 989. It is held that if for error of law, it must be filed within the time of appeal; Jorgenson v. Young, 136 Fed. 378, 69 C. C. A. 222 ; Taylor v. Easton, 180 Fed. 363, 103 C. C. A. 509 ; and for newly discovered evidence, within a reasonable time ; Camp Mfg. Co. v. Parker, 121 Fed. 195 ; within two months after decree was held in time ; Bruschke ' v. Verein, 145 DI. 433, 34 N. E. 417. The practice is to petition for leave if leave be necessary ; Mas sie v. Graham, Fed. Cas. No. 9,263. Granting leave does not prejudge the case at final hearing ; Hopkins v. Hebard, 194 Fed. 301, 114 C. C. A. 261.
A rehearing upon the ground that the court had overlooked a Controlling fact (not brought to its attention by counsel) was re fused in Moneyweight Scale Co. v. Scale Co., 199 Fed. 905, 118 C. C. A. 235.
Application after judgment in the appel late court must be made in that court ; Kings bury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 650, 10 Sup. Ct. 638, 33 L. Ed. 1047; Camp Mfg. Co. v. Park er, 121 Fed. 195 ; Keith v. Alger, 124 Fed. 32, 59 C. C. A. 552.
Where one proceeds to a decree after dis covering facts on which a new claim is founded, he cannot afterwards file a supple mental bill in the nature of a bill of review on such new facts ; Hood v. Green, 42 Ill. APP. 664.