BURCH v, SCOTT. 121

stayed awhile, until it can be corrected by motion in court. As
thus drawn up, this judgment of the court is always called its "de-
cretal order/' But it has the force only of an interlocutory order;
and is not a perfect, complete, and final decree before enrolment;
for, till then the Chancellor may re-hear, alter, or revise it, The
proper officer draws up the form of the decree for enrolment, from
the decretal order, reciting all the pleadings, &c.; after which a
fair copy is made upon parchment, and signed by the Chancellor.
It is then, and not until then, an enrolled and final decree. The
interval of time suffered to elapse, between the making of the de-
cretal order, and the enrolment, is seldom less than a month, often
more, and in some cases exceeds a whole year. But in this inter-
val the decretal order is so far considered as a final decree, that it
maybe enforced by attachment.(e)

The Court of Appeals have declared, that " the decree of the
Chancellor is subject to his control, only upon a bill of review, of
a bill in the nature of a bill of review. A bill of review lies after
the decree is signed and enrolled. A bill in the nature of a bill
of review lies after the decree is made, but before enrolment. A
decree must be considered as enrolled, after it is signed by the Chan-
cellor, and filed by the register, "(f) But the Chancellor rarely, if
ever, pronounces his decree orally, as in England, or if he does do
so in any case, no minutes of it are taken down. He is considered
as having pronounced no judgment; nor as having made any deci-
sion in the cause, until a decree is drawn up in writing, in full and
proper form, and signed by him. That decretal order, which, in
England, always precedes the enrolled or final decree, is never
made here, and is unknown to our practice. But in England the
phrase " decretal order," is often applied to various other orders
besides that which immediately precedes the decree; and it i*
sometimes applied in tie same sense here.

The plaintiffs have styled this bill, " their supplemental bill, in
the nature of a bill of review, "(g) But one of them was the defend-
ant9 and the others were no parties to the original bill, upon which
the decree complained of, had been passed; and it is attached, m
an addition, to no other bill; nor does it purport to supply the

(e) Gilb, For. Rom. 162; 1 Harr. Pr. Chan. 77, 620; 2 Harr Pr. Chan. 174;
2 Mad. Chan. 464; 2 Fow. Ex. Pra. 164.—(f) Hollingsworth v. McDonald, 2 H.
& J.237; Beans' Ord. 1; Digges's lessee v. Beale, 1 H. & McH, 71.--(g) 1 Mont
Dig. 318.

16