Page:United States v. Samperyac.pdf/1

118 Rh    complainants, vs.  and  defendants.


 * 1) It rests in the sound discretion of the chancellor, to award a feigned issue, or not; and it is done, to enable him to obtain additional facts, and to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the facts of the case.
 * 2) The verdict of the jury, on a feigned issue, is not conclusive, for the chancellor may have it tried again and again, and may even decree against a verdict.
 * 3) Where there is sufficient proof to enable the chancellor to decide, the parties should not be subjected to the delay and expense of a trial at law.
 * 4) The act of May 26, 1824, (4 Stat. 52) confers on this court the powers of a court of chancery, for the purpose of trying the validity of claims mentioned in that act, and a bill of review may be maintained therein.
 * 5) A bill of review lies either for error in law, appearing on the face of the decree, or for new material matter, that has come to light afterwards, and which could not have been used at the time the decree was made.
 * 6) The bill must be founded on new matter to prove what was before in issue, for a party cannot be entitled to a bill of review on new matter, to prove a title which was not in issue.
 * 7) Where a fraudulent claim was set up, and sustained by false testimony, the decree may be reversed and annulled, on a bill of review, and no rights can be acquired under such former decree.
 * 8) When the allegations of a bill are distinct and positive, they are taken as