allow a party to review a decree made for himself, if it be less beneficial to him than in truth it ought to have been.1 The error assigned must be apparent on the body of the decree; and it is no ground of review that the matters decreed are contrary to the proofs in the cause.2 They must also be errors in matters of law, appearing on the body of the decree, or because 1 See Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303; Ingalls v. Lord, 1 Cowen, 240; Hughes v. Stickney, 13 Wendell, 280; Parker v. Newland, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 87. 'Mellish v. Williams, 1 Vern. 166. The bill cannot be sustained on the ground that the Court has decided wrong on a question of fact. Webb v. Pell, 3 Paige, 368. Nor can it be brought for wrong inferences of the Court on matters of evidence. Young v. Henderson, 4 Hayw. 189. Nor upon the ground that the former decree was not warranted by the evidence. Dougherty v. Morgan, 6 Monroe, 153; Love v. Blewit, 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 108, 110; Eaton v. Dickinson, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 397; Getzler v. Saroni, 18 Ill. 511. Questions of fact are not open for discussion, on a bill of review for errors in law. Evans v. Clement, 14 Ill. 206. It will not lie where the original bill contains no equity; Todd v. Lackey, 1 Litt. 271; but see Griggs v. Gear, 3 Gilman, 2; nor unless the plaintiff shows himself aggrieved by the decree; Lansing v. Albany Ins. Co., 1 Hopk. 102; nor after a demurrer has been allowed to a former bill of review. Respass v. McClanahan, Hardin, 342. The error must appear on the decree and pleadings; for the evidence in the case at large cannot be examined to ascertain whether the Court misstated or misunderstood the fact. Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303; Story Eq. Pl. § 407; P. & M. Bank v. Dundas, 10 Alabama, 661. But taking the facts as they are stated to be on the face of the decree, it must be shown that the Court have erred in point of law. Story Eq. Pl. 407. If, therefore, the decree does not contain a statement of the material facts on which the decree proceeds, it is plain that there can be no relief by a bill of review, but only by appeal to some superior tribunal. Story Eq. Pl. § 407. It is on this account that in England decrees are usually drawn up with a special statement of, or reference to, the material grounds of fact which support the decree. In the Courts of the United States, the decrees are usually general, without any statement of facts. See ante, 1020 et seq., and notes; Burdine v. Shelton, 10 Yerger, 41. But for the purpose of examining all errors of law, the bill, answer, and other proceedings are, in our practice, as much a part of the record before the Court as the decree itself; for it is only by a comparison with the former, that the correctness of the latter can be ascertained. Story Eq. Pl. § 407; Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 311, 312; Hollingsworth v. M'Donald, 2 Harr. & John. 230; Webb v. Pell, 3 Paige, 368; Whiting v. Bank of the U. States, 13 Peters, 6, 13, 14; Ludlow v. Kidd, 2 Ohio, 372; Stevens v. Hey, 15 Ohio, 313; Saum v. Stingley, 3 Clark (Iowa) 514. In Sequin v. Maverick, 24 Texas, 526, it is said that "as our decrees do not recite the facts, as under the English Chancery practice, upon a bill of review, the decree can at most be reversed, and not corrected to accord with the facts; therefore a bill of review does not accord with our system." the Court wanted or exceeded its jurisdiction. Some Judges use the term, "appearing or arising on the body of the decree;" others, "apparent on the face of the decree;" both expressions must be understood in a circumscribed signification. Lord Eldon, in Perry v. Phelips,2 observes, "There is a distinction between error in the decree, and error apparent; error apparent does not apply to a merely erroneous judgment." And again he says, "The question is not whether the cause is well decided, but whether the decrce is right or wrong on the face of it;" and adds, "the cases of errors apparent are of this sort, not having a day to show cause." 3 an infant The bill of review is drawn, settled and signed, by counsel. In a bill of review it is necessary to state the former bill and the proceedings thereon, the decree,5 and the point in which the party exhibiting the bill of review conceives himself aggrieved by it: and the ground of law, or new matter discovered, upon which he seeks to impeach; and if the decree is impeached on the latter ground, it seems necessary to state in the bill the leave obtained to file it, and the fact of the discovery; though it may be doubted whether, after leave given to file the bill, that fact is traversable. The bill may pray, simply, that the decree may be reviewed, and reversed in the point complained of, if it has not been carried 1 Fitton v. Macclesfield, 1 Vern. 292; James v. Fisk, 9 Smedes & Marsh. 144. A bill of review for error of law may be brought wherever the decree is contrary to the statute law. Cooper Eq. Pl. 89; Wyatt's Prac. Reg. 225. Error in matter of form only, though apparent on the face of a decree, seems not to have been considered a sufficient ground for reversing a decree. And matter of abatement has been also treated as not capable of being shown for error to reverse a decree. Story Eq. Pl. § 411; Mit. Eq. Pl. by Jeremy, 85. In case of miscasting and miscounting, where the matter demonstratively appears from the decree itself to be mistaken, it may be explained and reconciled by order. Seton on Decrees, 399, and cases cited; Massie v. Graham, 3 McLean, 41. 2 17 Ves. 178. The decree is to be treated as including the bill, answer, and other proceedings, excepting the evidence at large, and all these may be looked into to find errors "apparent on the face of the decree"; but substantial errors only will be noticed. Saum v. Stingley, 3 Clark (Iowa) 514; Holman v. Riddle, 8 Ohio (X. S.) 384. The fact that a decree is based upon inadmissible or improper evidence, is no ground for a bill of review, unless some error in law is apparent upon its face. Eaton v. Dickinson, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 397. Turner v. Berry, 3 Gilman, 541; Randon v. Cartwright, 3 Texas, 267. Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 176. 1 into execution. If it has been carried into execution, the bill may also pray the farther decree of the Court to put the party complaining of the former decree into the situation in which he would have been if that decree had not been executed. If the bill is brought to review the reversal of a former decree it may pray that the original decree may stand. The bill may also, if the original suit has become abated, be at the same time a bill of revivor. A supplemental bill may likewise be added, if any event has happened which requires it; and particularly if any person not a party to the original suit becomes interested in the subject, he must be made a party to the bill of review by way of supplement. If an order has been obtained dispensing with the payment of costs ordered by the decree, it should be set out in the bill of review. The plaintiff cannot put his case in the alternative as a bill of review, or if the Court shall think it not so, then as a bill of revivor and supplement.* The bill is filed by the plaintiff's clerk in Court in the usual manner, and the defendant is served with a subpoena and appears as to an original bill. A bill of review brought to reverse a decree for error apparent on the face thereof, may be filed without the leave of the Court.5 Before a bill of review can be filed it is 1 Story Eq. Pl. § 420; Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 308, 309; Mitf. Eq. Pl. by Jeremy, 88-90. * Mitf. Pl. 80; and see Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 176; Price v. Keyte, 1 Vern. 135; Story Eq. Pl. § 420; Mitf. Eq. Pl. by Jeremy, 88-90; Hodson v. Ball, 11 Sim. 256, 463; Singleton v. Singleton, 8 B. Monroe, 340. A bill of review, defective in frame, may sometimes be sustained as a cross-bill. Cooper Eq. Pl. 95; Mitf. Eq. Pl. by Jeremy, 89, 90. Wyatt P. R. 97. ↑ Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 177. Welf. Pl. 239 ; Anon. 2 P. W. 283; Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 178; Gould v. Tancred, 2 Atk. 534; Denson v. Denson, 33 Miss. (4 George) 560. By Rule 173, New York in Chancery, no bill of review could be filed, either upon the discovery of new matters, or otherwise, without special leave of the Court first obtained. The application for this purpose should be made by petition; which should state the nature of the suit, the decree, and the errors of law, or the new matters, as the case may be, upon which the application is founded, and should pray for liberty to file a bill of review, to bring such decree into review. If the application is founded upon the discovery of new matter, the petition must describe the new evidence distinctly and specifically, and state when it was discovered, and its bearing on the decree. Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303; Massie v. Graham, 3 McLean, 41. It is not sufficient to state that the petitioner expects to prove certain facts. He must state the exact evidence to establish them. On the hearing necessary that a deposit of 50l. should be made to answer costs.! The deposit is made with the senior registrar. By the 5th of Lord Bacon's Ordinances, it was provided that no bill of review should be put in except the party that preferred it entered into recogni zances with sureties for satisfying costs and damages for the delay if it was found against him. This provision being insufficient, by an Order of 12th March, 1700, it was ordered that for the future no bill of review should be allowed or admitted except the party who preferred it first deposited the sum of 507. with the registrar of this Court, as a pledge to answer such costs and damages as this Court should award to the adverse party, in case the Court should think fit to dismiss the said bill of review.3 Filing the bill of review does not prevent the execution of the decree impeached.1 To entitle a person to bring a bill of review it is necessary that he should have obeyed and performed the decree; 5 as, if it be for of such a petition, affidavits may be admitted on both sides, if necessary, to explain the nature of the evidence. Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303, 308, 309; Story Eq. Pl. (3d ed.) 420, note; Hollingsworth v. McDonald, 2 Harr. & John. 230. Upon an application of this kind, the Chancellor exercises his judgment as to the propriety of interfering or meddling with the decree for the cause disclosed, and grants or refuses leave to file a bill of review accordingly. Hollings worth v. McDonald, 2 Harr. & John. 230. The Court on permitting a bill of review, or a bill in the nature of a bill of review, to be filed, should, where there was no fraud in the first trial, impose such terms as to the use of testimony for merly delivered in the suit, but since become inaccessible to the parties, as under the circumstances may be equitable. Singleton v. Singleton, 8 B. Monroe, $40. The Court may refuse a review to the party applying, and grant it for the protection of the interests of others. Hodges v. Milliken, 1 Bland, 511. If a bill of review is filed without leave, in a case requiring it, it may be dismissed on motion. Carroll v. Parran, 1 Bland, 125. 1 Anon. 2 P. W. 283. Beam. Ord. 4. 3 Beam. 313; Webb v. Pell, 1 Paige, 564. 4 Williams v. Mellish, 1 Vern. 117, n. Wiser v. Blachly, 2 John. Ch. 488; Livingston v. Hubbs, 3 Ibid. 125; Griggs v. Gear, 3 Gilman, 2. Therefore, if the decree be for the payment of money, the party must pay it or give security, although it should afterwards be ordered to be refunded. Lubé Eq. Pl. 130. But the rule may be dispensed with under the circumstances of the case. Thus, where the party is in execution for non-payment of money under the decree, this is considered equivalent to performance. Livingston v. Hubbs, 3 John. Ch. 124. So where the party is insolvent: Stalling v. Goodloe, 3 Murph. 159; or has given security for the performance of the decree. Stalling v. Goodloe, 3 Murph. 159; Taylor v. Pearson, 2 Hawks, 298. land, that the possession be yielded; if it be for money, that the money be paid; if it be for evidences, that the evidences be brought in; and so in other cases which stand upon the strength of the decree alone. But if any act be decreed to be done which extinguisheth the party's right at the common law, as making of assurance or release, acknowledging satisfaction, cancelling of bonds or evidences, and the like, those parts of the decree are to be spared until the bill of review be determined; but such sparing is to be warranted by public. order made in Court.2 If the decree directs an act to be done by the defendant after the plaintiff has done a certain other act, and the plaintiff has not performed his part, it is no objection to the defendant's filing a bill of review that he has not obeyed the decree. In Partridge v. Usborne, the decree directed the defendant to pay a certain sum upon the execution of the conveyance. The defendant filed a bill of review, which the plaintiff moved to take off the file on the ground that the defendant had not performed the decree. The Lord Chancellor refused the motion, the defendant not being bound to pay the money until the conveyance was executed. He intimated, however, that when that was done, if the decree was not obeyed, a motion should be made to stay the proceedings in the bill of review till the decree had been performed. If the party is unable to perform the decree, he must move for an order to stay what is proper to be stayed, and should swear to his inability, and if he is in contempt he should surrender himself to the Fleet, to lie there till the matter on the bill of review is determined. If costs have been decreed in the original cause, they should be paid before the bill of review is filed. In Fitton v. Macclesfield, a plaintiff was allowed to bring a bill of review without paying the costs decreed in the original cause, upon making oath that he was not worth 407. besides the matter in question. In Partridge v. Usborne, a motion was made on behalf of the defendant, that he might be at liberty, under an Order of the 8th August, to file a supplemental bill, in the nature of a bill of re 1 Massie v. Graham, 3 McLean, 41; Griggs v. Gear, 3 Gilman, 2. Beam. Ord. 4. |