THE PLANTERS & MERCHANTS

 BANK,

DUNDAS, ct G. Mobile Chancery.
{"newspaper_name": "State journal & flag.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": "CAMPBELL, for plaintiff in error."}
{"character_count": 1557, "word_count": 280, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9487000107765198], "ccnet_perplexity": [781.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
CAMPBELL, for plaintiff in error.

 FISHER. contra.

 ORMOND, J.

 1. In England, it seems, the allowance of bill of review IS matter of right. where there is an error apparent on the face of decree; and discretion in a case of newly discovered evidence, but in this State. Clay's Dig. $50. s 30, it rests ex- clusively in the sound discretion of the court.

 ?. Where a re. sale of lands. once disposed of under decree sought to be disturbed by bill of review. will be productive of mischief. 10 an innocent party; and where the evil complained of has been super.In duced by the gross negligence of the ap. pl,cant ;-leave to file such bill of review will be refused.

 3. Where the leading principle of decree IS, that where different parcels of mortga. ged premises, have been sold at differt nt times by the mortgagor, subject to inc mortgage the sale for the satisfaction of the mortgage shall be made in the in- verse order of the alterations and where the contesling parties 10 motion for leave 10 file bill of review, claim deiiv. atively from various alienees of the mort. gagor; and the party opposed to the motion claims under deeds with warranty posterior in date, and it is doubtful wheth. CT the deeds under which the other party claims were with warranty though prior in date ;-in such state of the case, there is no error apparent upon the face of the decree, though the lands under the deeds prior in date were by the decree required to be first sold. Leave to file bill of re. view having been mprovidently given the motion here dismissed.