BURCH v. SCOTT.—1 BLAND. 113

enrolled. Most clearly such a bill cannot be resorted to in this
case.

A bill of review, properly so-called, lies against those who were
parties to the original bill, and against them only; and must be
either for error apparent on the face of the decree, or for some new
matter. 1 Mont. Dig. 330; 2 Mad. Chan. 537. But before a bill
of review, for newly discovered matter, can be filed, the party
must petition for leave to do so; setting forth the new matter,
strongly sustaining his statement by affidavits; upon which the
leave of the Court is granted. In this case there has been no
petition, setting forth newly discovered matter, nor any leave
given to file such a bill. This bill, therefore, can, in no respect
whatever, be considered as a bill of review, grounded on the dis-
covery of new matter.

A bill of review for error apparent on the face of the decree,
may be filed without asking, or obtaining the leave of the Court;
and it may be brought by either of the parties to the original bill
alone; or it may be filed by a person not a party to the original
decree, but whose rights are injured by it. Such is the case now
before this Court. The bill of these plaintiffs has this character;
and no more.

This bill has yet another aspect. It alleges, that the plaintiffs,
one of whom was a party to the original suit, had a good and
available defence; that all of them should have been made parties;
that they have, all of them, an interest which they will be able to
maintain and prove; and that the decree of the 4th of August last
was obtained by surprise, for a greater amount than was actually
* due; or owing to a kind of negligence tor which they are
not at all blamable, or for which they may, at least, be ex-
cused. Upon these grounds they pray to have the decree opened
and the cause re-heard. According to the English authorities, if
the enrolment of a decree be obtained by surprise, or irregularly,
it may be opened; provided, the application be made within a
reasonable time. And where the merits of the case had not been
entered into, an enrolled decree has been set aside upon special
circumstances, notwithstanding the proceedings were strictly
regular. For a Court of equity will make every effort, within its
power, to reach the merits of the case, and have justice done.
Kemp v. Squire, 1 Ves. 206; 2 Mad. Chan. 465.

This bill, then, divested of all extraneous matter, may be regarded
in three distinct characters: first, as an original bill, to have the
decree of the 4th of August last reversed on the ground of fraud,
because it injuriously affects the interests of some of these com-
plainants who were not parties to it; secondly, as a bill of review
for error apparent on the face of the decree; and thirdly, as a bill,
grounded on the peculiar circumstances, asking to have the decree
by default set aside, and the case re-heard upon the merits.
8 1B.