About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Daniel R. Southard, Samuel D. Tompkins, William L. Thompson, Matilda Burks, Joseph R. Tunstall, John Burks, James Burks, Samuel Burks, Charles Burks, and Mary Burks (the four last named by William L. Thompson, their next friend,) v. Gilbert C. Russell U.S. 547 (1854)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0222 and id is 1 raw text is: DECEMBER TERM, 1853. 547 Southard et al. v. Russell. here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court; that the de- cree of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby reversed with costs, and that this cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court for further pro- ceedings to be had therein in conformity to the opinion of this court. DANIEL R. SOUTHARD, SAMUEL D. TOMPKINS, WILLIAM L. THOMPSON, MATILDA BURKS, JOSEPH R. TUNSTALL, JOHN BURKS, JAMES BURKS, SAMUEL BURNS, CHARLES BURKS, AND MUARY BURKS (the four last named by WILLIAM L. THOmP- SON, their next friend,) v. QILBERT C. RUSSELL. A bill of review, in a chancery case, cannot be maintained where the newly discovered evidence, upon which the bill purports to be founded, goes to impeach the character of witnesses examined in the original suit. Nor can it be maintained where the newly discovered evidence is merely cumulative, and relates to a collateral fact in the issue, not of itself, if admitted, by any means d&cisive or controlling: such as th6 question of adequacy of price, when the main question was, whether a deed was a deed of sale or a mortgage. Where a case is decided by an appellate court, and a mandate is sent down to the court below to carry out the decree, a bill of review will not lie in the court below to correct errors of law alleged on the face of the decree. Resort must be had to the appellate court. Nor will a bill of review lie founded on newly.discovered evidence, after the publica- tion or decree below, where a decision has-taken place on an appeal, unless the right is reserved in the decree of the appellate court, or permission be given on an application to that court directly forthe purpose. THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the Uniteu States for the District of Kentucky, sitting as a court of equity. Being a continuation of the case of Russell v. Southard and others, reported in 12 Howard, 139, it is proper to take it up from the point where that report left it. In 12 Howard, 159 it is said, After the opinion of the court was pronounc.ed, a motion was made on behalf of the appellees for a rehearing and to remand the ecuse to the Circuit Court for farther preparation and proof, upon the ground that new and material evidence had been discoyered since the case was heard and decided in that court. Sundry ;tffidavits were filed, showing the nature of the evidence which was said to have been discovered. The reporter abstained from stating the substance of these affidavits in consequence of the following order, which was in- dorsed upon them in the handwriting of Mr. Chief JuStice Taney. The court direct me to say, that these affidavits are not to be inserted in the report, as they implicate the character of indi-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most