HAYDEN VS. STEWART. J|59

In answer to this part of the petition, Ann Maria Pfeltz says,
"she denies positively that she ever told the petitioner that the
proceedings in the said suit were stopped or stayed, br other-
wise led him into errett in regard to the proceedings ;" and no
proof is produced to show that she did mislead him upon the
subject.

It seems to me, adopting the language of the Court of Ap-
peals, "that if upon the application of this party, thus guilty of
disregarding the process of the court, its decrees are to be re-
vised and changed, a lax principle of practice will be establish-
ed, which will be productive of the most serious consequences
in the administration of equitable jurisprudence."

There is another insuperable objection to entertaining this
petition, supposing it may assume the character «fa bill of re-
view, and that is, that it was filed more than nine months from
the date of the decree; it having been settled by the Court of
Appeals, that the limitation of time as to appeals from the de-
crees of the court applies to the right of filing bills of review.
Berrett vs. Oliver, 7 G. &J, 207.

The children of Julius Peter Pfeltz were not parties to the
bill upon which the decree passed, and are of course not bound
by it. Their rights are, therefore, supposed to be unaffected;

but the father, the petitioner, was, and his petition, for the rea-
sons stated, must be dismissed.

HANDEL M. HAYDEN

vs. JULY TERM, 1849.
DAVID STEWART, JR.

[JUDGMENT—LIEN OF.]

A JUDGMENT rendered in any one of the county courts in this state is not a lian
upon lands lying in another county, until the plaintiff, in the mode pointed
out by the acts of 1794, ch. 54, and 1795, ch. 24, has transferred his judgment
to such other county.

Judgments, when liens at all, are general liens upon all the lands of the defend"
ant, continuing for twelve years, and fasten as well upon those lands which
the defendant held at the tine of their rendition, as upon those subsequently
acquired.