BARRY VS. BARRY. 23

The question raised by the petition of William J. Barry is a
different one. He has no interest in the proceeds of the sale,
having previously thereto sold and conveyed his share of the
estate to Mr. Glenn. His interest is limited to the rents and
profits, of which he was entitled to one-seventh, to the period of
his sale. He alone petitions for a re-examination of the accounts,
and a disallowance of the commissions already allowed to the
trustee upon the rents. The other parties, therefore, must be re-
garded as acquiescing in these allowances, or at least consid-
ered unwilling to embark in litigation with respect to them.

William J. Barry prays that the enrollment of four orders of
the court, dated the 8th and the 18th of November, 1844, the
7th of January, 1845, and the 21st of February, 1846, may
be vacated and set aside, and that the accounts of the Auditor
may be re-examined and corrected in regard to the commissions,
and some other allowances, made to the trustee. He states in
his petition that he had then but recently obtained a knowledge
of these orders, but he does not say when he obtained the know-
ledge.

It has been argued on the part of the trustee, that these or-
ders being enrolled, an original bill upon the ground of fraud,
or a bill of review should be filed to vacate them, and many
authorities have been cited in support of this position. Ex-
pressions were certainly used by the Court of Appeals in the
case of Burch et al. vs. Scott, 1 G. & J, 393, from which it
might be fairly inferred, that after a decree is obtained and en-
rolled, a petition is not the proper proceeding to obtain a re-
hearing. The language of the court at page 424 is, "if a de-
cree be obtained and enrolled, so that the cause cannot be re-
heard upon a petition, there is no remedy but by bill of review,
which must be upon error appearing upon the face of the de-
cree, or upon some new matter, as a release, or receipt, dis-
covered since." But in the more recent case of Oliver vs.
Palmer & Hamilton, 11 Gill & Johns., 137, it was decided that
the enrollment of a decree alleged to have been obtained by
surprise, might be vacated upon either a bill or petition, and in
Wooster et al. vs. Wood/lull, 1 Johns. Ck. Sep., 539, and Lan-