Biddle, 1 Bald. 419, Fed. Cas. 764, holding bill for account barred by former account and running of period more than equal to statute of limitations; Dunlevy v. Dunlevy, 38 Fed. 462, dismissing bill of review based upon errors on face of the record because not filed until six years after decree entered; McDonald v. Whitney, 39 Fed. 467, and Reed v. Stanley, 89 Fed. 433, 437, dismissing bill of review based upon errors on face of record because petition not filed within time limited for appeal on writ of error; Rector v. Fitzgerald, 59 Fed. 813, 19 U. S. App. 423, holding bill of review could not be allowed after expiration of time limited for taking appeal; Allen v. Currey, 41 Cal. 321, dismissing complaint in nature of bill of review for new trial, on ground of newly discovered evidence, because not filed within time limited for appeal; Fillyau v. Laverty, 3 Fla. 108, where statute limiting time within which to present demands against decedent's estate, applied by analogy to creditor of partnership to which deceased belonged, filing bill in equity to recover partnership debt from deceased's estate; Guerry v. Durham, 11 Ga. 17, holding bill of review could be filed within twenty years, but not after; Coombs v. Jordan, 3 Bland Ch. 327, 22 Am. Dec. 274, holding statute limiting time within which execution could issue on a judgment at law, would be applied by analogy to decrees in equity; York's Appeal, 110 Pa. St. 82, 2 Atl. 69, where creditor of estate presented claim in Orphans' Court, it was held to be barred by statute of limitations because it would have been so barred in law court; Fenwick v. Macey, 1 Dana (Ky.), 292, holding statute of limitations applies to bar equity of redemption of slaves which had been in adverse possession of original mortgagee more than five years; Morgan v. Railroad Co., 39 W. Va. 28, 19 S. E. 592, applying ten days' limitation within which to appeal, by analogy to application for writ of certiorari; Poole v. Nixon, 19 Fed. Cas. 1000, where possibility of loss of opportunity to file bill of review by expiration of time given as reason for allowing amendment of record pending appeal; United States v. Rico, 27 Fed. Cas. 809, holding District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain bill of review where United States were guilty of laches.

Modified in Ensminger v. Powers, 108 U. S. 302, 27 L. Ed. 736, 2 Sup. Ct. 651, holding bill of review filed in time, though not within two years after final decree, because while appeal was pending in Supreme Court the control of Circuit Court over decree was suspended; United States v. Samperyac, Hempst. 131, Fed. Cas. 16,216a, holding rule not applicable where bill of review based on newly discovered evidence; Jenkins v. Prewitt, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 9, holding when bill of review based on newly discovered evidence, time runs from date of discovery; Boyd v. Vanderkemp, 1 Barb. Ch. 288, denying application for leave to answer decree which had been taken as confessed nine years before, and upon which decree had been entered five years before; Hyde v. Lamberson, 1 Idaho, 542, holding advantage could not be taken, on demurrer, of failure to file bill of review in time.

Distinguished in Perkins v. Cartmell, 4 Harr. 274, 275, 42 Am. Dec. 755, 756, where held since legacies were not within statute of limitations respecting actions and entries concerning lands, the exceptions thereto were not applicable in equity to demand for payment of legacy, but the same was barred for staleness.

Limitations in equity. Note, 12 Am. Dec. 372.

Time within which bill of review must be brought. Note, 6 Ann. Cas. 330, 332.

Leave to file bill of review on ground of newly discovered evidence rests in the sound discretion of the court.

Approved in Hopkins v. Hebard, 194 Fed. 309, 114 C. C. A. 261, affirmed in Hopkins v. Hebard, 235 U. S. 291, 59 L. Ed. 234, 35 Sup. Ct. 26, holding that as new evidence may result in mischief to innocent parties, review asked for should be denied; Acord v. Western Pocahontas Corporation, 156 Fed. 995, holding that no sufficient excuse showing for failure to present newly discovered evidence at trial, bill should not be filed; Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 314, Fed. Cas. 13,259, discussing circumstances under which leave should be given by court, but dismissing bill on merits; Massie v. Graham, 3 McLean, 52, Fed. Cas. 9263, where court in exercise of its discretion, denied leave to file bill; Elliott v. Balcom, 11 Gray, 300, since leave to file bill of review not founded on errors in record lies in discretion of the court, findings on petition to file same are not conclusive nor evidence of facts set out in bill; Maddox v. Apperson, 14 Lea, 617, where court dismissed bill in exercise of its sound discretion.

Nature and scope of bills of review. Note, 20 Am. Dec. 163.

Bills of review for newly discovered matter. Note, 20 Am. Dec. 170, 172.

Bills of review in federal courts for newly discovered evidence. Note, 14 Ann. Cas. 194.

Who is entitled to file bill of review. Note, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 128. Right of bill of review as dependent upon interest. Note, 36 L. R. A. 387.

Matters which rest in the discretion of the lower court are not subject to review by the Supreme Court.

Cited in Steines v. Franklin Co., 14 Wall. 22, 20 L. Ed. 818, where court refused to review action of Supreme Court of Missouri in denying motion for rehearing; Richer v. Powell, 100 U. S. 107, 25 L. Ed. 528, affirming decree refusing leave to file bill of review based on newly discovered evi dence, because it rested in the sound discretion of the court.

Nonjoinder of parties complainant in bill in equity not ground for review where defendant not injuriously affected thereby.

Cited in Bryan v. Stevens, 4 Fed. Cas. 511, holding trustees of a license to use patent within certain territory need not join their cestuis que trust in suit to enjoin infringement.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Irwin v. Meyrose, 2 McCrary, 249, 7 Fed. 536, where court sustained demurrer to bill of review which alleged no new matter; Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 314, Fed. Cas. 3856, containing discussion of considerations which should influence the court in exercise of its discretion; Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 141, 9 Am. Rep. 652, to point that advantage could be taken of bar of statute of limitations by demurrer.

10 Wheat. 152-181, 6 L. Ed. 289, ELMENDORF v. TAYLOR.

The United States courts adopt construction of State laws by State courts. Approved in Hartford Ins. Co. v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 175 U. S. 100, 44 L. Ed. 89, 20 Sup. Ct. 37, holding questions of public policy affecting contracts are governed by laws of the State unless violating United States law, Constitution, treaties, or principles of mercantile law; In re Progressive Wall Paper Corp., 229 Fed. 493, holding under New York law, corporation had no power to issue bonds for antecedent debt; Shaw v. Goebel Brewing Co., 202 Fed. 412, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1090, 120 C. C. A. 470, holding assignee of certificates of shares barred from maintaining suit for transfer under section 35, companies act 1862-1909, of Great Britain; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 180 Fed. 296, holding surety liable on supersedeas bond under Pennsylvania law; Zeiger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 158 Fed. 811, 86 C. C. A. 69, holding that nonresident alien cannot maintain action for wrongful death under Pennsylvania statute; York. v. Washburn, 129 Fed. 567, 64 C. C. A. 132, applying rule in determining invalidity of lease of realty under State statute of frauds; Parker v. Moore, 115 Fed. 802, holding dealings in futures being void in South Carolina (Rev. Stats., § 1859 et seq.), Circuit Court for district of South Carolina will not enforce contract for sale of cotton in future; Thompson v. M'Connell, 107 Fed. 36, holding under Rev. Stats. Tex. 1895, art. 2396, homestead of insolvent being exempt from execution it cannot be subjected to Federal judgment; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Lansford, 102 Fed. 66, holding Code Ala., 1896, § 27, providing for actions for personal injuries, having been construed by Supreme Court of Alabama as awarding exemplary damages, that construction is binding on Federal court; Williams v. Gold Hill Min. Co., 96 Fed. 465, holding under Const. Cal., art. XII, § 15, relating to foreign corporation doing business in the State, and Stats. 1880, p. 131, relating to mortgaging or selling land by said corporation, a mortgage of a corporation of another State not conforming thereto is void; Commonwealth v. International Harvester Co., 131 Ky. 560, 133 Am. St. Rep. 256, 115 S. W. 706, holding that an indictment for violation of anti-trust statute was demurrable; State v. Davis, 9 Okl. Cr. 102, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1083, 130 Pac. 965, holding that while disobedience by officer of order of court was contempt of court, punishment might be

suspended; dissenting opinion in Kessler v. Armstrong Cork Co., 158 Fed. 753, 85 C. C. A. 642, majority holding finding of French law with reference to conclusiveness of American judgments is not binding on different parties to another action involving same question; Alaska Commercial Co. v. Debney, 2 Alaska, 325, arguendo; Green v. Neal, 6 Pet. 297, 8 L. Ed. 405, where Supreme Court conformed to the more recent decision of Tennessee court of a State statute; Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 58, 12 L. Ed. 606, following State courts in holding question of what was legal government in Rhode Island in 1842, to be a political one; dissenting opinion in Gelpeke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 210, 17 L. Ed. 527, arguing that latest decision of State court as to constitutionality of State law was binding on Federal courts; Fairfield v. Gallatin Co., 100 U. S. 52, 25 L. Ed. 546, overruling former decision construing section of State Constitution, and deciding case according to construction by State Supreme Court; McArthur v. Scott, 113 U. S. 391, 28 L. Ed. 1031, 5 Sup. Ct. 667, recognizing as authority Ohio cases construing State law relating to proceedings to set aside probate of wills; Merrill v. Portland, 4 Cliff. 144, Fed. Cas. 9470, where State construction of State statute relating to recovery from town for injuries from defective highway held obligatory on Federal court; Wick v. Schooner Strong, 6 McLean, 593, Newb. 192, Fed. Cas. 17,607, holding court bound by decision of State Supreme Court, construing Ohio statute as not creating lien on domestic vessel in favor of materialmen; Thompson v. Phillips, 1 Bald. 284, Fed. Cas. 13,974, accepting construction of State act by State Supreme Court; Goodrich v. Chicago, 4 Biss. 20, Fed. Cas. 5542, holding decisions of State Supreme Court construing city charter, bound Federal court; Boyle v. Arledge, Hempst. 623, Fed. Cas. 1758, adopting construction by State Supreme Court of State statute repealing exception in statute of limitations in favor of nonresidents; Barker v. Jackson, 1 Paine, 564, Fed. Cas. 989, following decision of State court, construing State statute as a statute of limitations, and holding same not repugnant to State Constitution; Griffing v. Gibb, McAll. 222, Fed. Cas. 5819, holding court bound by decisions of State Supreme Court construing State laws; Mitchell v. Lippincott, 2 Wood, 472, Fed. Cas. 9665, following latest decisions of State court construing "married woman's law" of Alabama; In re Wyllie, 2 Hughes, 459, Fed. Cas. 18,112, where court followed local construction in construing State exemption laws; Waterworks Co. v. Brewing Co., 36 Fed. 834, following decisions of State Supreme Court rather than one decision of Federal Supreme Court construing State laws, holding city council could grant privilege of laying water-pipes to river; Bate v. Gillett, 20 Fed. 193, following construction placed on Canadian patent law by Canadian court; Railroad Co. v. Houston, 44 Fed. 450, holding where case removed to Federal court after State Supreme Court had passed upon a demurrer decision of such court thereon bound Federal court; Perry Co. v. Brown, 2 Wood. & M. 455, Fed. Cas. 11,015, following decisions of State courts as to effect of proceedings in State courts under State insolvent

law; Prentice v. Zane, 19 Fed. Cas. 1272, where decision of Pennsylvania courts construing Pennsylvania statute making certain instruments negotiable is recognized as authority; Udell v. The Ohio, 24 Fed. Cas. 498, recognizing authority of State court decisions construing State statutes relating to materialmen's liens on domestic vessels; Bloodgood v. Grasey, 31 Ala. 589, following Maryland decisions in construing Maryland statute, relating to deeds of manumission; Broadnax v. Bradford, 50 Ala. 275, following construction by Federal court of United States bankrupt act of 1867; Johnson v. State, 91 Ala. 73, 9 South. 72, following Tennessee decisions construing powers granted by charter to railroad company where Alabama charter to same company granted all rights, powers and privileges conferred by Tennessee charter; Moore v. Clopton, 22 Ark. 129, holding note for purchase of slaves void where made to be void in Arkansas; McClure v. Owen, 26 Iowa, 254, arguing that decision of State court declaring a State law unconstitutional and contracts made thereunder void should bind the Federal tribunals; United States v. Hawkins, 4 Mart. (La.) (N. S.) 328, recognizing authority of decisions of Federal court construing Federal statute; Cucullu v. Insurance Co., 5 Mart. (La.) (N. S.) 472, 16 Am. Dec. 203, holding conclusive construction given to Mexican Constitution in Mexico sustaining competency of prize courts established before adoption of Constitution; Saul v. His Creditors, 5 Mart. (N. S.) 587, 16 Am. Dec. 221, denying authority of other foreign decisions upon question sufficiently determined by Spanish law which formed part of the law of Louisiana; Conrad v. Prieur, 5 Rob. (La.) 57, recognizing authority of decision of District Court, so construing Federal bankrupt law that mortgagees in Louisiana were entitled to the same privileges as mortgagees under other State systems; Hill v. Boston, 122 Mass. 380, 23 Am. Rep. 366, explaining certain Federal cases where points decided by them otherwise than as contended for in case at bar were so decided pursuant to this rule; McIntyre v. Ingraham, 35 Miss. 58, sustaining power of State court to declare State law constitutional as applied in case at bar and denying application of Federal decisions holding such statute unconstitutional except under similar circumstances; Laird v. Railroad Co., 62 N. H. 262, 13 Am. St. Rep. 566, where court held that liability for destruction of building in Vermont by fire from railroad locomotive determined by Vermont statute and endeavored to ascertain the construction placed upon such statute in Vermont; dissenting opinion in Hale v. Lawrence, 21 N. J. L. 745, recognizing as authority decisions of New York courts construing New York statute relating to destruction of buildings to prevent spread of fire; Works v. Lawrence, 23 N. J. L. 597, 57 Am. Dec. 422, in argument to effect that where construction of New York statute had been adopted by courts of that State it should be final; Jessup v. Carnegie, 80 N. Y. 446, 36 Am. Rep. 646, adopting construction placed upon Iowa statute by Iowa courts; dissenting opinion in Matheny v. Golden, 5 Ohio St. 430, in argument against authority of decisions of United States Supreme Court construing law