HODGES v. MULLIKIN.—1 BLAND. 481

forth the deed of the 7th of April, and making this petitioner
Mullikin, the surviving trustee under that deed, a defendant along
with Thomas Harwood. Which bill Harwood answered, acknowl-
edging, that he had executed those deeds, and that he had not
then paid the debts secured by either of them. On Mullikin's
being served with a subpoena to answer, he at once apprehended,
that it had relation to his situation as trustee under the deed of
the 7th of April; and, therefore, he called on T. Harwood for in-
formation respecting the situation of the debts specified in that
deed; and was told, that they were very stale; that more than
twelve years had elapsed since they became due; and that he,
Mullikin, could have no claim under the trust deed. But Harwood
did not inform Mullikin, that suits had been brought, and judg-
ments obtained against himself, and the late Benjamin Harwood
before his death, by some of those creditors. Mullikin appears to
have had the credulity to be thus turned aside by T. Harwood from
making aay further inquiry; antl to have been induced to believe,
that he might consider himself as completely exonerated, and as
having no claim whatever upon the property mentioned in that
deed. After which Mullikin, accompanied by T. Harwood, called
on Nicholas Brewrer, the plaintiff's solicitor, for the express pur-
pose of obtaining information respecting the suit, so that he might
put in his answer; and. from the conversation wThich then passed,
it appears, that the impression was again renewed upon the mind
of Mullikin, that, as he had not been, so he could not be injured;
and therefore had no claim whatever upon the property mentioned
in the deed of trust. And accordingly he answered to that effect,
without then having before him, or ever having read either the
bill, or the answer of T. Harwood, as is evident from his, Mulli-
kin's, making a mistake in his answer, as to the names of the
parties to the bill. After thus answering, it appears, that Mullikin
rested satisfied, and had no further information respecting the
matter until a short time before the filing of his petition in the
month of August last. On the second of May, 1825, a decree was
passed grounded * upon the admission of Mullikin, and the
absence of any proof of the then existence of the debts 511
mentioned in the trust deed, directing the mortgage debt to be
paid, and if not, that the property should be sold for the satisfac-
tion of that debt alone.

The law of the Court in relation to bills of review was laid
down in a set of ordinances or rules established by Lord Bacon as
far back as the beginning of the year 1618. The sound sense and
utility of those rules have been amply tested, and they have been
adhered to ever since. In regard to the matter now under con-
sideration, the rule is expressed in these words: " Upon new proof,
that is come to light after the decree made, and could not
possibly have been used at the time when the decree passed, a bill
31 1 B.