| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 313 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
RIDGEWAY VS.TORAM. 313 make a case giving the court jurisdiction, because there were no allegations showing either that the complainants, had no remedy at law, or having a remedy, had exhausted it. The present application does not rest upon the ground that the facts, which it is proposed to bring before the court in a supplement- al bill, have occurred, or come to the knowledge of the com- plainants since the decree, but that such knowledge was ac- quired between the period when the cause was put at issue and the hearing, and the question, therefore, is, whether, ac- cording to the rules which have been established for the government of the court upon this subject, or upon the reason and expediency of the thing, it would be proper to open the litigation, and re-try the cause upon the ground relied upon. :.. In England, it appears to be settled, that a bill of review, or a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review, may be filed upon new and material evidence, discovered since publi- cation, and of which the party could not have come to the knowledge before publication by the exercise of reasonable dil- igence. "The question (said Lord Eldon, in Young vs. Keighley, 16 Vez., 363) upon a bill, in the nature of a bill of re- view, is not what the plaintiff knew, but what, using reason- able diligence, he might have known," and in that very case, though he deemed the evidence very material, and as such, would have essentially changed the decision if it had been brought before the court at the proper time, he dismissed the petition, upon the ground, that though the evidence was not discovered until after publication, it might have been discover- ed before by using reasonable diligence. In speaking upon this subject, Mr. Justice Story says, "and the qualification of the rule, is, that the matter must not only be new, but it must be such, OB the party, by the use of reasonable diligence, could not have known, for if there be any laches or negligence in this respect, that destroys the title to relief." Story's Eq. PI.) sec- tion 414. And the same rule, and qualification of the rule, has been re- peatedly and emphatically affirmed and enforced by Chancel- 28 |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 313 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives